PUBLICATIONS 

BY  CHARLES  WILLIAM  WALLACE 

NEWLY  DISCOVERED  SHAKESPEARE  DOCUMENTS 
(1905),  $.30,  prepaid. 

THE  CHILDREN  OF  THE  CHAPEL  AT  BLACK  FRIARS 
(1908),  $2.50  net.     Carriage  extra. 

SHAKESPEAREAN  RESEARCH,  containing  Dr.  Wal- 
lace's latest  discoveries  on  Shakespeare  and  the 
Globe  and  Blackfriars  theatres,  as  noticed  in  the 
present  work,  besides  the  above  records  of  1905 
on  the  Poet's  Blackfriars  property,  and  valuable 
documents  on  "The  Theatre,"  etc.  Accom- 
panied by  narrative  and  facsimiles.  In  prepa- 
ration. 

THE    CHILDREN    OF    THE    REVELS,    their     Origin, 
Course,  and  Influences.     A  history  based  upon 
original  records,  documents,  and  plays,  being  a 
contribution    to   knowledge  of    the    stage    and 
drama  of  Shakespeare's  time.    In  three  volumes. 
Volume  one,  Theatres  and  Companies. 
Volume  two,  Plays  and  Players. 
Volume  three,  Original  Documents. 
In  preparation. 


Ex  UbrH 
C.  K.  OGDEN 


THE  CHILDREN  OF  THE  CHAPEL 
AT  BLACKFRIARS  15-97-1603 


INTRODUCTORY  TO 

THE    CHILDREN    OF    THE    REVELS 

THEIR     ORIGIN     COURSE    AND      INFLUENCES 

A  HISTORY  BASED  UPON  ORIOINAL  RECORDS  DOCUMENTS  AND 
PLAYS  BEING  A  CONTRIBUTION  TO  KNOWLEDOE  OF  THE  STAGE 
AND  DRAMA  OF  SHAKESPEARE'S  TIME     :::::::::: 


By  CHARLES   WILLIAM   WALLACE  PhD 

Associate  Professor  of  English   Language  and 
literatlre  in  the  university  of  nebraska 


"But  there  is  Sir 
an  ayrie  of  Chil- 
dren,littleYafes, 
that  crye  out  on 
the  top  of  quef- 
tion;  and  are 
moft  tyrannical- 
ly clap't  for't: 
thefe  are  now 
the  Fafhion.'" — 
Hamlet,  II,  n. 


ORIGINALLY    PUBLISHED    BY 

THE  UNIVERSITY   OK  NEBRASKA    IN   IMVnisiTY    BTUDIB8 
AND     REPRINTED     THEREFROM     FOR    THE     AUTHOR 

OF  THIS  THOUSAND  ONLY  150  COPIES   BOUND  at  $2.50    W  /  / 


copyright,  1908, 
By  CHARLES  WILLIAM  WALLACE. 


THE  CHILDREN  OF  THE  CHAPEL 
AT  BLACKFRIARS  1^97-1603 


INTRODUCTORY  TO 

THE  CHILDREN  OP  THE  REVET. S 

THEIR     ORIGIN     COURSE    AND      INFLUENCES 

A  HISTORY  BASED  UPON  ORIGINAL  RECORDS  DOCUMENTS  AND 
PLAYS  BEING  A  CONTRIBUTION  TO  KNOWLEDGE  OF  THE  STAGE 
AND   DRAMA   OF  SHAKESPEARE'S   TIME      :::::::::: 


By   CHARLES   WILLIAM   WALLACE  PhD 

Associate  Professor  of  English   Language  and 
llterattjbe  in  the  university  of  nebraska 


"But  tbei 

;m  i\  rn'  of  Chil- 
dren, little  Yafes, 
tli.it  crj 

the  top  "I  quel 
tion;  and  are 
molt  tyrannical- 
ly clap't  (or't: 
tlieU-    are    now 

tllf     l-'.l'i 

II,    11. 


ORIOINAI.I.Y     11  HI.ISHED    BT 

Tin:    DNIYBB8IT1    Hi-   NEBRASKA    1  \   ONIVBBSITI    BTUDIHfl 
AND     BBPBJNTBD     THBBBPBOM     FOB      1  1 1 1 :     1UTHOB     L908 
"i'    nns  THOU8AND  ONLY   1."."  COPIB8  BOUND    \i    | 
BOLD     Bl      I'HK     rjNrVBBSIl  v     BOOB     BTOBI     ai     LLNOOLN 


ANNOUNCEMENT 

The   Children   of   the   Chapel   at   Blackfriars   1597-1603,    by 
Charles  William  Wallace.  Ph.D.,  of  the  University  of  Nebraska, 
dy  for  delivery. 

This  volume  is  introductory  to  the  complete  work  now  in 
preparation  «>n  the  drama  and  stage  of  Shakespeare's  time  from 
original  records,  documents,  and  plays,  under  title  of  The  Chil- 
dren of  the  Revels,  their  Origin,  Course,  and  Influences,  which 
German  and  English  scholars  have  been  Looking  forward  to 
since  its  announcemenl  from  London  in  1905. 

The  Author  is  carrying  out  extensive  explorations  in  Euro- 
pean archives  on  the  lines  begun  five  years  ago  in  the  search 
for  new  materials.  In  L905  he  discovered  and  published  in 
London,  as  side-lights  on  Larger  results,  three  contemporary 
documents  concerning  Shakespeare.  These,  as  the  first  scrap 
of  information  since  Halliwell's  discovery  thirty-five  years  be- 
fore, were  widely  reviewed  and  discussed  in  the  metropolitan 
newspapers  and  literarj  journals  of  Europe  and  America.  But 
their  immediate  worth  was  in  inducing  the  realization  that  not 
all  records  touching  the  Poet  were  yet  known,  and  inspiring 
the  confidence  thai  more  are  still  to  be  found  than  have  hitherto 
come  to  light  on  Shakespeare  and  contemporaries,  their  thea- 
tres and  dramas.  In  the  natural  course  of  systematic  research, 
indeed,  other  Shakespeare  documents  of  unusual  importance 
have  come  to  light,  as  have  a  I  so  records  on  theatres,  dramas, 
poets,  and  players. 

These  Shakespeare  Documents,  the  first  credited  to  American 
scholarship,  will  be  published  separately.  But  the  latest  of 
them,  containing  the  most  important  biographical  data  since 
the  discovery  of  Shakespeare's  will  in  1747,  are  drawn  upon 
for  incidental  items  in  this  volume. 

Other  materials,  however,  of  equal  or  greater  worth,  though 
ess  exciting  interest,  constitute  the  bulk  of  the  present  work 
and  are  presented  in  full. 

Here  is  a  book  that  is  of  interest  to  lovers  of  Shakespeare  and 
-indents  of  i  he  drama  and  stage  of  his  time.  Its  contributions 
of  new  knowledge  make  it  necessary  also  to  the  university, 
college,  school,  and  public  library. 

The  Hamlet  chapter  alone  is  a  valuable  contribution,  based 
upon  new  evidences  of  fact. 

Other  chapters  present  for  the  first  time,  on  the  basis  of  like 
final  evidences,  the  establishment  of  Blackfriars  by  Elizabeth, 
her  requirements  for  training  the  boy-actors,  her  attendance  at 
plays  there,  the  development  of  the  masque  within  the  play,  the 


?N 
25^0 

custom  of  sitting  on  the  stage  from  its  beginning  in  England  to 
its  termination  in  France,  the  historical  perspective  of  the  fa- 
mous "stage-quarrel,"  and  the  general  course  of  stage-history 
from  1597  to  1603  under  new  aspects,  involving  Theatre,  City, 
and  Crown.  Certain  dramatic  influences  touching  Shakespeare, 
Jonson,  Chapman,  Marston,  are  presented;  the  differences  be- 
tween private  and  public  theatres  are  clearly  marked;  and  a 
comparative  view  of  all  the  theatres  gives  new  data. 

The  plats  of  the  Fortune  and  Blackfriars  theatres  are  the 
first  attempts  of  the  sort  ever  made.  They  serve  to  give  new 
details  graphically,  and  also  to  correct  many  current  notions 
concerning  the  theatres  and  stages  of  Shakespeare's  time. 

The  matter  is  new — even  in  a  very  old  field.  The  facts  and 
documentary  evidences,  new  and  old,  from  European  archives, 
placed  in  their  own  self-established  relations,  tell  a  fresh  and 
ifiteresting  story. 

The  style  ami  mode  of  treatment  are  simple,  direct,  con- 
vincing, bringing  details  into  clear  coherence. 

It  is  a  notable  work  on  the  Shakespearean  period. 

An  eminent  German  professor  speaks  of  it  as  "a  very  valu- 
able contribution  to  the  history  ©f  the  Theatre  and  Drama  at 
the  beginning  of  the  seventeenth  century,  which  in  fact  gives 
us  for  the  first  time  a  thoroughly  solid  foundation  for  the  stage- 
history  of  this  period." 

All  in  all,  it  is  a  judicial,  solid,  authoritative  work,  made  at 
once  interesting  to  the  general  reader  and  permanently  useful 
as  an  indispensable  reference  book  to  the  scholar. 

Mechanically  well  gotten  up,  with  clear,  easy  type,  on  extra 
quality  of  paper.  Large  8vo.,  bound  in  buckram,  with  gold  top, 
and  uncut  edges.     223pp.,  with  analytical  index. 

The  number  of  copies  is  limited,  and  this  announcement  is 
sent  to  a  select  list  of  those  believed  most  likely  to  want  the 
work. 

Price,  $2.50,  net,  carriage  extra.  Or  sent  postpaid  on  receipt 
of  $2.65.  Both  foreign  and  American  orders  must  be  accom- 
panied by  remittance. 

Order  direct,  with  remittance  payable  to 

The  University  Book  Store 

340  North  11th  Street  Lincoln,  Nebraska 


PUBLICATIONS 

BY  CHARLES  WILLIAM  WALLACE 

NEWLY  DISCOVERED  SHAKESPEARE  DOCUMENTS 
(1905),  $.30,  prepaid. 

THE  CHILDREN  OF  THE  CHAPEL  AT  BLACKFRIARS 
(1908),  $2.50  net.    Carriage  extra. 

SHAKESPEAREAN  RESEARCH,  containing  Dr.  Wal- 
lace's latest  discoveries  on  Shakespeare  and  the 
Globe  and  Blackfriars  theatres,  as  noticed  in  the 
present  work,  besides  the  above  records  of  1905 
on  the  Poet's  Blackfriars  property,  and  valuable 
documents  on  "The  Theatre,"  etc.  Accom- 
panied by  narrative  and  facsimiles.  In  prepa- 
ration. 

THE    CHILDREN    OF    THE    REVELS,    their     Origin, 
Course,  and  Influences.     A  history  based  upon 
original  records,  documents,  and  plays,  being  a 
contribution    to  knowledge  of    the    stage    and 
drama  of  Shakespeare's  time.    In  three  volumes. 
Volume  one,  Theatres  and  Companies. 
Volume  two,  Plays  and  Players. 
Volume  three,  Original  Documents. 
In  preparation. 


ijn  iflii  Iflifr 

l^uUia  Ifrrggren  UaUar? 

(Bnmpantnn  anJi  3Frlloui  tn  Kcacarrlj 


CONTENTS 


VII 


Preface     

Introduction. — A  General  View  of  the  Field    .         i 

I  The  Blackfriars  Theatre  Building        ...       17 

II  The  Blackfriars  Stage.    Its  Structure,  Arrange- 
ment, and  Furnishings 55 

III  Establishment  of  the  Blackfriars  under  Offi- 
cial Grants 56 

IV  Actors  and  Singers. — The  Two  Functional  Di- 

visions of  the  Children  ....       73 

V  Star  Chamber  Proceedings  against  the  Use  of 

the  Children  of  the  Chapel  as  Actors        .      yy 

VI  Dating  Events,  and  Establishment  of  New  Man- 
agement         84 

VII  Queen  Elizabeth  at  the  Blackfriars  .         .      95 

VIII  The  Queen's  Maintenance  of  the  Children  at 

Blackfriars 98 

IX  Status    of    the    Blackfriars    Children.       The 

Queen's  Requirements 105 

X  Summary  of  Evidences  on  the  Official  Sanction 

of  Blackfriars  126 

XI  The  Custom  of  Sitting  on  the  Stage  Originating 

at  Blackfriars  130 

XII  The    Queen's    Purposes. — Opposing    Theatrical 

and  Official  Conditions,  1 597-1603        .         .     14S 


vi  CONTENTS 

XIII  Relations  of   Blackfriars  to   Other  Theatres, 

Poets,  and  Players 163 

XIV  The  Hamlei  Passage  on  the  Blackfriars  Chil- 

dren       173 

Index        .........     187 


PREFACE 

Some  years  ago  I  undertook  to  edit  an  old  play  of  one  of  the 
children-companies,  prefaced  by  a  historical  introduction.  I  found 
I  could  not  do  it  conscientiously  without  finding  out  the  truth 
about  the  company  that  played  the  piece.  An  examination  of 
the  published  works  of  Europe  and  America  touching  the  chil- 
dren-actors showed  a  woeful  jumble  of  variegated  error  as  a  re- 
sult of  the  romantic  or  unfaithful  treatment  of  the  meager  facts. 
Manifestly  the  truth  was  not  known,  and  the  facts  were  in  chaos. 
So  the  two  or  three  paragraphs  into  which  I  had  intended  to  con- 
dense the  matter  for  my  introduction,  I  saw  vanish  into  vapor. 

This  condition  of  affairs  threw  me  back  on  the  unpromising 
data,  and  I  began  searching  archives  for  new  data  and  investi- 
gating the  sources  and  relations  of  both  old  and  new.  The  ad- 
vance has  been  steady  since  the  first  day.  I  soon  found  the 
children's  company  in  question  was  related  to  other  children-com- 
panies, and  these  in  turn  to  the  men-companies,  and  all  of  them 
to  the  nature  and  place  of  acting,  and  especially  to  the  spirit  and 
form  of  the  drama.  My  contemplated  two  or  three  paragraphs 
now  expanded  into  a  chapter,  then  a  section,  then  a  volume,  and 
finally  I  am  trying,  by  excluding  the  bulkiest  and  least  related 
documents,  to  confine  results  within  the  limits  of  three  volumes. 

Meanwhile  the  contemplated  edition  of  the  old  play  is  biding 
its  time.  So  are  certain  other  editions,  all  of  which  can  consci- 
entiously and  scientifically  be  undertaken  only  when  this  work 
as  a  proper  historical  basis  is  complete. 

The  following  introductory  chapters  constitute  the  first  section 
of  volume  I.  Many  of  the  documents  for  volume  III  were  as- 
sembled and  the  MS.  for  volume  I  and  partly  for  volume  II  was 
prepared  for  the  press  in  1904-6,  during  my  two-years  absence 
from  the  University  of  Nebraska,  with  residence  and  research  in 
Europe,  particularly  in  Germany.  France,  and  England.  This 
first  section  was  accepted  for  the  doctorate  by  the  Philosophical 


viii  PREFACE 

Faculty  of  Albert-Ludwig  University,  Freiburg  i/Br.,  where  I 
acquired  the  degree  of  Ph.D.  in  the  summer  semester  of  1906. 
With  a  larger  courtesy  than  I  could  have  hoped, — a  courtesy 
characteristic  of  the  true  lover  of  learning  in  the  German  uni- 
versities,— that  Faculty  voted  to  grant  me  the  privilege  of  adding 
results  of  contemplated  further  research  at  a  future  time.  By 
virtue  of  this  grace,  the  present  publication  is  delayed  two  years. 
I  have  accordingly  reworked  and  expanded  most  of  the  chapters, 
incorporating  such  results  of  my  more  recent  researches  as  prop- 
erly fall  within  the  scope  of  this  section.  Fortunately  my  latest 
finds  have,  with  but  rare  and  minor  exceptions,  been  mainly  in 
the  nature  of  documentary  and  final  substantiation  of  conclusions 
reached  from  the  more  slender  evidences  first  used. 

In  coming  to  the  study  of  the  children-companies,  their  widely 
ramifying  influences  on  stage  and  drama,  and  the  characteristics 
of  their  repertoire  in  its  entirety,  every  one  finds  himself,  I  sup- 
pose, pretty  much  in  the  condition  I  was  in  when  I  set  about  the 
work.  We  are  hindered  by  lack  of  knowledge,  and  conditioned 
by  our  preconceptions  derived  from  the  mass  of  past  error  and 
from  false  perspectives  of  sectional  studies,  as  the  treatment  of 
isolated  dramas,  or  isolating  topics  running  through  a  series  of 
dramas,  and  by  special  treatises  that  strain  facts  to  maintain  a 
theme.  As  for  myself,  I  have  been  forced  to  give  up  one  con- 
ception and  one  supposed  fact  after  another,  until  now  I  find 
nearly  every  essential  detail  in  this  history  is  different  from  what 
I  had  supposed  from  these  books  and  special  studies  to  be  the 
truth. 

In  the  preparation  of  this  work,  I  have  had  no  theme  to  main- 
tain, no  theory  to  defend,  and  none  to  propose.  My  sole  guide 
has  been  the  simple  desire  to  find  the  truth.  I  have  told  it  as  I 
found  it,  in  plain  and  simple  fashion,  so  that  others  may  read  it. 
In  order  that  they  may  judge  for  themselves,  I  have  given  also 
the  evidences,  usually  in  foot-notes.  These  are  therefore  the  most 
valuable  part  of  the  work.  The  foot-notes,  constituting  more 
than  half  of  the  whole  work,  may  seem  sometimes  burdensome. 
But,  intended  for  the  scholar,  they  are  in  fact  the  only  part  in 
which  I  take  special  pride,  for  it  has  been  my  desire  to  assemble 
materials  and  references  that  may  hereafter  be  cited  as  reliable. 


PREFACE  ix 

I  recognize  also  that  this  repository,  as  all  such,  must  be  referred 
to  again  and  again  in  working  out  themes  but  lightly  or  not  at 
all  touched  upon  here.  Some  may  find  uses  for  the  materials  not 
now  anticipated.  My  narrative,  which  I  hope  may  never  be  read 
separately  from  the  notes,  is  not  intended  to  be  simply  a  pleasing 
tale,  but  is  mainly  a  series  of  inevitable  conclusions  thrust  up  into 
clear  view  by  the  records,  data,  and  events  in  their  own  self-es- 
tablished relations. 

No  page  in  this  work  has  any  other  cause  or  excuse  for  exist- 
ence than  the  presentation  of  some  new  fact  or  conclusion. 
Among  the  items  of  new  knowledge  some  rise  into  prominence 
above  the  others. 

The  clear  differences  between  the  private  and  the  public  the- 
atres are  sharpened  in  many  details.  The  influence  of  the  chil- 
dren-theatres, the  boy-actors,  and  their  poets  on  the  form  and 
spirit  of  the  drama  is  presented  only  in  part,  the  fuller  view  neces- 
sarily awaiting  the  assembled  materials  of  the  complete  work. 
Blackfriars,  the  model  of  the  modern  theatre,  is  for  the  first  time 
presented  unromantically,  on  the  basis  of  fresh  historical  data, 
with  exact  dimensions  and  other  details  of  construction.  The 
location  and  general  structure  of  the  stage  is  also  shown.  A 
comparative  view  of  all  the  theatres  furnishes  new  items  of  fact. 
The  accompanying  suggestive  plats  of  the  Blackfriars  and  the 
Fortune,  the  first  attempts  of  the  kind  yet  made,  are  in  a  measure 
contributive  to  the  same  end.  While  in  large  part  they  are 
merely  "suggestive"  rather  than  final,  they  are  at  the  same  time 
corrective  of  certain  popular  impressions,  especially  as  regards 
the  relative  positions  of  stage  and  audience  in  theatres  of  the 
Elizabethan-Jacobean  period. 

Certain  new  data  are  given  from  documents  concerning  Shake- 
speare, the  Globe,  and  Blackfriars.  These  documents  are  there- 
fore now  for  the  first  time  publicly  announced,  although  they 
came  into  my  hands  long  ago.  They  are  vastly  more  valuable 
than  the  three  newly  discovered  Shakespeare  documents  which  I 
made  public  in  1905.  On  the  personal  side  of  Shakespeare,  they 
are  the  most  important  records  brought  to  light  since  the  dis- 
covery of  the  poet's  will  a  century  and  a  half  ago  (  17.17  ).  On  the 
side  of  the  Globe  and  Blackfriars,  the  origin  of  London  theatre 


x  PREFACE 

"shares"  there,  and  the  ownership  of  them  from  the  first,  par- 
ticularly in  reference  to  Shakespeare's  relations  to  these  two  the- 
atres, they  are  more  important  than  the  famous  Globe-Black- 
friars  share-papers  of  1635,  announced  by  J.  O.  Halliwell  in  The 
Athenaeum,  August  13,  1870,  p.  212,  and  published  by  him  four 
years  later  in  A  Fragment  of  Mr.  J.  O.  Halliwell 's  "Illustrations 
of  the  Life  of  Shakespeare."1  Concerning  the  counter-petition 
of  the  Burbages  in  the  Halliwell  discoveries,  the  reviewer  of  the 
above  publication,  in  The  Athenaeum,  February  21,  1874,  in  the 
course  of  a  two-page  article,  gives  the  judgment  (p.  250),  which 
has  ever  since  rightly  prevailed,  that  "It  is  not  too  much  to  say 
that  this  is  one  of  the  most  important  passages  regarding  Shake- 
speare that  has  yet  been  discovered.  As  to  his  connexion  with 
the  stage  it  is  the  most  important."  But  the  discoveries  now  an- 
nounced very  greatly  surpass  the  former  ones  in  these  regards. 
They  also  give,  besides  many  other  items,  for  the  first  time  the 
exact  location  of  the  Globe,  with  complete  boundaries,  as  de- 
scribed in  several  legal  indentures.  The  length  and  nature  of 
these  documents  require  that  I  give  them  out  later  in  a  separate 
publication,  with  adequate  accompanying  treatment  of  the  mat- 
ter involved.  They  constitute  also  an  essential  part  of  the  present 
work  in  its  complete  form. 

The  commissions  to  Edwards,  Hunnis,  and  Gyles  are  new,  and 
the  use  of  Gyles's  commission  as  authority  in  establishing  the 
Blackfriars  in  accord  with  the  Queen's  will  is  peculiarly  note- 
worthy. Queen  Elizabeth's  connection  with  the  establishment 
of  Blackfriars,  the  maintenance  of  the  Children  of  the  Chapel 
there  at  royal  expense,  and  her  own  attendance  at  that  theatre 
are  not  only  new,  but  of  special  value  in  understanding  much  of 
the  theatrical  history  of  the  times.  The  whole  course  of  stage- 
history  from  1597  to  1603,  involving  Theatre,  City,  and  Crown, 
made  particularly  alluring  by  several  drastic  orders,  notably  of 
1600-1,  and  hitherto  baffling  to  scholars,  has  been  cleared  up  by 
evidence  that  seems  final.  The  stage-quarrel  between  Jonson  on 
the  one  side  and  Marston  and  Dekker  on  the  other,  debated  vari- 
ously by  scholars  for  two  centuries,  likewise  finds  for  the  first 
time  its  proper  place  and  perspective  in  history  as  merely  a  minor 

1  Privately  printed.     Fifty  copies  only.     Feb.  1874. 


PREFACE  xi 

affair  subordinate  to  conditions  arising  out  of  the  establishment 
and  maintenance  of  Blackfriars.  The  long-mooted  custom  of 
sitting  on  the  stage  has  been  traced  from  its  origin  in  the  Black- 
friars to  its  termination  in  France  and  Germany, — reported  last 
by  Goethe, — in  1759. 

The  Queen's  requirements  for  the  training  of  the  Blackfriars 
Boys  in  not  only  grammar-school  subjects  but  in  all  arts,  par- 
ticularly singing,  instrumental  music,  dancing,  and  play-acting, 
gave  rise  to  the  masque  within  the  play,  exerting  wide  influence 
on  Shakespeare  as  well  as  his  contemporaries  and  successors. 
The  right  chronology  of  the  plays,  in  some  cases  differing  widely 
from  the  varied  guesses  and  ratiocinative  datings  of  the  past,  is 
established,  the  date  of  each  play  being  fixed  either  exactly  or 
within  the  narrow  limits  of  one  to  two  months.  Unfortunately 
the  full  evidences  must  await  a  later  volume.  Incidentally  the 
date  of  composition  of  Hamlet  as  in  the  latter  half  of  1601  and 
of  its  first  acting  as  late  1601  to  early  1602,  probably  at  the  Christ- 
mas season  of  1601-2,  also  establishes  itself  by  final  evidences, — 
which  has  hitherto  been  impossible.  The  significance  of  certain 
known  documents  is  made  clear  by  assembling  all  evidences. 
Among  these  the  Hamlet  passage  on  the  Children  perhaps  will 
claim  chief  interest.  Every  slightest  detail  of  that  much-debated 
passage  now  becomes  clear  and  historically  contributive,  as  pre- 
sented in  a  special  chapter.  Certain  long-mooted  Hamlet  prob- 
lems not  dealt  with  here  must  ultimately  take  account  of  data 
presented  before  they  can  be  finally  put  beyond  speculative  de- 
ductions in  the  field  of  debate  and  established  on  the  simple  and 
final  basis  of  pure  history. 

In  no  instance  is  the  reader  asked  to  take  my  conclusion  as  his 
own,  but  in  every  case  he  is  given  the  evidence  from  which  the 
inevitable  conclusion  forces  itself  upon  the  judicial  mind.  If  my 
own  interpretations,  therefore,  agree  with  the  reader's,  I  shall 
merely  have  anticipated  him  by  having  had  the  first  chance  at  the 
evidences  offered. 

The  materials  for  this  work,  as  already  indicated,  were  gath- 
ered with  the  primary  desire  to  find  the  truth  in  the  history  of 
the  children-companies.  But  they  have  led  me  far  beyond.  When 
I  got  my  materials  together  and  found  the  relations  of  facts  to 


xii  PREFACE 

each  other,  I  was  surprised  to  discover  that  they  explained  finally 
matters  outside  the  direct  line  of  the  history  of  the  children.  For 
example,  the  chronology  of  plays  having  been  established,  chiefly 
on  external  evidences,  I  found  the  surprising  feature,  already 
mentioned,  of  the  masque  within  the  play  originating  in  and  run- 
ning through  the  Elizabethan  regime  at  Blackfriars,  stopping 
short  with  the  Queen's  death  in  1603.  Not  more  than  two  Black- 
friars plays  prior  to  her  death  lack  this  feature,  while  under 
James  all  lack  it  but  two.  Similarly,  historical  evidence  served 
to  fix  the  succession  of  incidents  in  the  quarrel  between  Jonson 
and  the  so-called  poetasters.  The  Queen's  relations  to  Blackfriars 
led  to  an  examination  of  all  official  orders  and  other  external  his- 
torical data,  clearing  up  finally,  as  just  said,  the  unique  muddle 
of  opposing  royal,  municipal,  and  theatrical  conditions  of  1597- 
1603.  The  same  relations  led  to  the  collection  of  all  evidences 
touching  the  custom  of  sitting  on  the  stage,  with  surprising  re- 
sults. Indeed,  the  whole  course  of  theatrical  and  dramatic  his- 
tory of  the  Elizabethan-Jacobean  period  turns  out  to  be  related 
as  either  cause  or  effect,  and  no  feature  consequently  can  be 
treated  as  quite  isolated.  I  have  found  it  necessary  to  take  into 
account  every  theatre,  company,  and  drama  of  the  period,  for  the 
children-theatres  are  related  to  all. 

As  the  present  work  is  based  wholly  upon  original  sources,  the 
chief  weight  of  reference  is  given  to  archives  and  documents, 
rather  than  to  interpretative  and  critical  publications.  In  the 
course  of  investigation  it  has  been  within  my  purpose  to  consult 
the  contributive  publications  of  Europe  and  America  touching 
upon  the  field  of  Elizabethan- Jacobean  dramatic  literature,  crit- 
icism, and  history, — a  library  of  considerable  proportions  in  itself. 
Yet  I  have  doubtless  overlooked  some.  Few  have  yielded  mate- 
rials for  this  work.  Books  and  articles  merely  reworking  old 
knowledge  or  old  conclusions, — the  main  bulk,  unfortunately,  in 
this  field, — have  not  been  taken  account  of.  Such  works  as  I 
have  had  occasion  to  refer  to  are  sufficiently  indicated  in  the  foot- 
notes. They  are  mainly  publications  containing  original  docu- 
ments. To  collect  these  into  a  list  would  in  this  modern  day  of 
special  bibliographies  be  a  gratuity  by  no  means  complimentary 
to  that  select  circle  for  which  the  work  is  prepared,  and  would 


PREFACE  xiii 

at  the  same  time  be  but  a  fractional  representation,  chiefly  a  mis- 
representation, of  my  labors  in  research. 

I  had  at  first  intended  to  cite  some  of  the  most  important  errors 
passed  down  to  us  and  repeated  steadily  in  current  publications 
as  true.  But  except  in  probably  a  half  dozen  cases  this  has  not 
been  done.  A  complete  collection  would  be  voluminous,  and  a 
mere  citation,  while  calling  attention  to  curious  antiquities  or 
their  followers,  would  have  been  long  and  of  no  other  than  crit- 
ical-historical service.  When  the  reader  comes  upon  different 
conclusions  in  my  predecessors,  he  will  find,  I  am  sure,  as  I  have, 
that  the  most  important  differences  arise  from  the  fact  that  the 
latest  materials  were  not  then  available  and  could  not  then,  as 
now,  be  assembled  and  put  into  order.  Indeed,  it  may  be  edifying 
to  lay  these  earlier  works  by  the  side  of  the  present  matter  in 
judging  this  history.  Malone,  Chalmers,  Collier,1  Halliwell- 
Phillips,  Greenstreet,  and  an  occasional  other  devotee  of  the  true 
as  opposed  to  romance  in  stage-history,  collected  some  materials 
that  fancy  and  time  will  not  change.  Their  conclusions  are  often 
wide  of  the  mark.  Aside  from  these,  the  scholarship  of  the  past 
herein  has  been  mainly  the  scholarship  of  opinion,  or  of  hypoth- 
esis, or  of  unsupported  oracular  declaration.  But  opinions  or 
hypotheses  or  conclusions  without  basis  of  fact  are  worthless. 
So  new  are  the  views  given  by  the  present  materials  that  not  a 
single  opinion  or  conclusion  of  my  predecessors  has  served  as  a 
basis  for  restatement.  I  have  gone  to  contemporary  sources  and 
questioned  them  in  every  instance  where  such  sources  were  avail- 
able. This  work  must  stand,  consequently,  not  upon  the  author- 
ity of  predecessors,  but  upon  the  merits  of  its  materials  and  the 
justness  of  the  conclusions  they  have  called  forth.  Most  of  all 
therefore  I  commend  the  judicial  perusal  of  every  document, 
fact,  and  occurrence  offered,  in  judging  the  truth  of  what  this 
history  represents. 

The  examination  of  printed  books,  mainly  for  the  contempo- 
rary documents  they  might  hold,  has  been  the  smallest  part  of 
my  labors.     Most  of  all  have  I  searched  the  original  records  in 

*Had  he  been  but  content  with  the  truth!  His  work  is  marred  by 
colossal  forgeries.  Yet  no  one  can  disregard  the  vast  service  of  Collier 
in  furnishing  us  with  document  after  document  of  genuine  worth. 


xiv  PREFACE 

European  archives.  Considerably  more  than  half  a  million  orig- 
inal MS.  records  of  the  period  of  Elizabeth  and  James,  most  of 
them  not  yet  catalogued,  have  been  examined,  and  the  indexes 
to  some  million  more  have  been  sifted.  The  resulting  discov- 
eries, some  of  which  appear  in  these  introductory  chapters,  may 
seem  disproportionately  few.  On  the  contrary,  I  am  surprised 
and  gratified  to  find  so  old  a  field  even  thus  rich,  and  am  encour- 
aged to  complete  the  work  I  have  been  gradually  drawn  into.  It 
is  hoped  that  the  following  introductory  account  may  be  in  some 
measure  gratifying  also  to  those  readers  who  hail  every  item  of 
new  knowledge  with  an  open  mind.  The  question  they  will 
weigh  is  not  so  much  whether  the  discoveries  are  greater  or  less 
than  former  ones,  but  first  of  all  whether  they  add  to  the  store 
of  information,  then  how  much.  Looking  at  results  with  the 
grudging  eye  of  a  third  person, — for  they  belong  not  to  me  but 
to  historical  truth, — I  recognize  that  they  are  at  least  sufficient 
to  advance  knowledge  in  this  field  beyond  previous  bounds,  and 
clear  away  some  difficulties  that  have  troubled  scholars  more  than 
a  single  century. 

Yet  this  history  is  by  no  means  final.  I  regard  it  as  little  more 
than  pioneer  work  in  the  field.  No  more  can  be  claimed  for  my 
part  in  it  than  fidelity  and  loving-care  in  stating  and  interpreting 
the  facts  in  the  light  of  the  evidences  collected.  For  the  docu- 
ments themselves,  no  more  can  be  claimed  than  partial  assem- 
blage, and  authoritativeness  only  so  far  as  they  speak.  The  vast 
body  of  documents  lie  yet  undiscovered.  From  definite  evidences 
gathered  in  the  course  of  research,  I  know  where  many  of  these 
are  to  be  found.  But  it  requires  time,  money,  and  organization, 
all  of  which  I  shall  secure,  to  complete  the  work.  Not  only  cer- 
tain discoveries  of  especial  worth,  but  the  numerous  minor  ones 
as  a  result  of  definite,  persistent  tracing  give  confidence  of  large 
results  in  future  research. 

No  one  can  be  more  keenly  conscious  of  the  lacks  of  the  present 
work  than  I  am.  Great  gaps  in  the  materials  have  been  tempo- 
rarily bridged  as  well  as  possible,  but  the  gaps  remain.  There  are 
consequently  more  statements  unimpregnably  fortified  than  is 
pleasing  to  one  who  loves  research  for  the  sake  of  truth.  The 
excuse  if  not  palliation  for  their  being,  is  that  they  seem  to  be  in 


PREFACE  xv 

accord  with  the  known  facts.  They  may  not  be.  Future  re- 
search, and  discovery  of  the  facts,  not  your  judgment  nor  mine, 
will  settle  that.  I  have  at  least  aimed,  here  as  well  as  throughout 
the  work,  to  follow  whither  the  evidences  lead.  In  doing  this  I 
have  spent  a  due  portion  of  some  years  in  the  study  of  the  docu- 
ments and  plays.  Every  document  has  been  searched  many 
times.  The  weightier  ones  have  been  studied  line  by  line,  and 
every  fact  or  statement  compared  through  a  system  of  copious 
index  notes  with  other  items  of  possible  bearing.  That  there  are 
errors  is  to  be  expected.  Many  items  have  doubtless  escaped  me. 
Many  more,  I  know,  lie  yet  buried  in  unrevealed  records.  Some 
of  these  I  shall  secure  before  final  publication,  while  some,  be- 
cause of  their  bulk,  I  reserve  for  later  presentation, — such  as  cer- 
tain signed  depositions  by  George  Chapman,  Thomas  Dekker, 
Edward  Pierce,  Thomas  Woodford,  Gervase  Markham,  and 
others,  and  the  voluminous  sources  of  hitherto  unknown  plays  by 
Chapman,  Dekker,  Webster,  Ford,  Rowley,  and  others.  The 
fragments  of  the  new  dramas  of  course  shall  be  published,  with 
a  proper  account  of  them. 

I  purpose  that  this  work  when  completed  shall,  by  virtue  of 
the  materials  presented,  be  authoritative  and  permanently  useful 
in  its  own  field.  I  shall  therefore  be  first  to  hail  the  comer  with 
new  light  from  any  source. 

It  remains  to  acknowledge  my  obligations  for  privileges  of 
research. 

The  institutions  to  which  I  am  peculiarly  indebted  for  use  of 
books,  manuscripts,  or  documents  are  the  Konigliche  Bibliothek, 
Berlin;  Hof-  und  Stadts-Bibliothek,  Miinchen;  Universitats-Bib- 
liothek,  Heidelberg;  Land-  und  Stadts-Bibliothek,  Strassburg; 
Universitats-Bibliothek,  Freiburg  i/Br. ;  Bibliotheque  Nationale, 
Paris  ;  Bodleian  Library,  Oxford ;  University  Library,  Cambridge ; 
British  Museum,  Public  Record  Office,  Library  of  the  House  of 
Lords,  Privy  Council  Office,  and  the  Guildhall  Record  Office, 
London. 

I  am  particularly  grateful  to  Dean  L.  A.  Sherman,  Chancellor 
E.  B.  Andrews,  and  the  Board  of  Regents  of  the  University  of 
Nebraska  for  allowing  me  the  extended  leave  of  absence  of 
1904-6.     This  gave  me  time  to  cross  to  Europe  and  find  means 


xvi  PREFACE 

to  reach  original  records.  Of  persons  there,  I  am  indebted  first 
of  all  to  former  Ambassador  Joseph  Choate  for  official  courtesies, 
and  to  our  present  Ambassador  at  the  Court  of  St.  James,  Mr. 
Whitelaw  Reid,  for  additional  aid  in  securing  me  privileges  of 
research.  Superintendent  G.  F.  Warner  of  the  MS.  department 
and  Superintendent  Barrett  of  the  Reading  Room  of  the  British 
Museum  and  their  staffs  have,  in  the  course  of  years,  afforded 
me  larger  opportunities,  I  think,  than  they  themselves  are  aware 
of.  Dr.  Sharp,  Superintendent  of  the  Guildhall  Record  Office, 
has  given  me  unreservedly  the  benefit  of  his  accurate  knowledge 
as  well  as  his  personal  help  in  researches  that  I  could  not  other- 
wise have  carried  out.  Superintendent  E.  Salisbury,  of  the  lit- 
erary search  department  of  the  Public  Record  Office,  to  whose 
unfailing  courtesy  and  generous  consideration  and  help  I  am 
most  deeply  indebted,  has  placed  at  my  disposal  every  facility 
for  searching  the  national  records.  The  officials  of  the  Legal 
Room  and  of  the  Round  Room  have  also  been  generous  with  as- 
sistance at  all  times.  The  Chief  Clerk  of  the  Privy  Council  Office 
has  likewise  been  most  courteous  in  producing  the  ancient  records 
of  the  King's  Council  for  my  use. 

To  Professors  Dr.  Wilhelm  Wetz,  Dr.  Roman  Woerner,  and 
Dr.  Friedrich  Kluge,  of  Albert-Ludwig  University,  Freiburg 
i/Br.,  I  owe  special  thanks  for  privileges  of  study  with  them  dur- 
ing the  years  of  1904-6. 

Of  all  persons  concerned,  the  one  to  whom  I  owe  most  is  she 
to  whom  alone  this  work  can  properly  be  inscribed,  my  wife,  who 
since  1906  has  been  my  constant  companion  and  equal  fellow  in 
research,  and  whose  vision  and  judgment  have  ever  been  my  help. 

Lincoln,  April,  1908. 


INTRODUCTION 

A  GENERAL  VIEW  OF  THE  FIELD 

There  were  two  regularly  constituted  companies  of  children- 
actors  under  Elizabeth  and  four  under  James  I.  Those  whose 
history  this  work  aims  chiefly1  to  present  were,  The  Children 
of  the  Chapel  at  Blackfriars,  1 597-1603  ;2  The  Children  of  the 
Revels  to  the  Queen  at  Blackfriars,  1604-8;  The  Children  of  the 
King's  Revels  at  Whitefriars,  ca.  1603-9  '■>  The  Children  of  the 
Revels  to  the  Queen  at  Whitefriars,  i6io-i6i3-[i5].3  The  last 
three  may  be  spoken  of  in  a  general  way  under  the  common  title, 
Children  of  the  Revels. 

These  three  royally  patronized  Jacobean  children-companies 
and  their  various  imitations  and  ramifying  influences  ranging 
down  to  the  period  of  the  Restoration  are  traceable  directly  to 
their  source  in  Queen  Elizabeth's  establishment  of  the  Children 
of  the  Chapel  at  Blackfriars,  1 597-1603.  The  source  of  that 
establishment  was  the  Queen's  will.  But  the  precedent  enabling 
her  by  a  wide  stretch  to  use  the  Children  of  the  Chapel  in  carry- 
ing out  her  final  theatrical  purposes  is  to  be  found  in  the  long- 
standing custom  of  using  them  for  the  divertisement  of  Royalty 
and  the  Court.  Practically  throughout  Elizabeth's  reign  they 
had  been  incidentally  employed  now  and  then  for  this  purpose 
in  presenting  stage-plays  and  interludes.  Their  secular  use  in 
acting,  singing  on  festival  occasions,  and  at  royal  entertainments, 
precedes  the  reign  of  Elizabeth  and  doubtless  antedates  our  first 
records  of  such. 

The  primary  function  of  the  Children  of  the  Chapel  Roval  was 
to  minister  to  his  or  her  Majesty's  spiritual  well-being  by  trained 
choral  singing  at  times  of  devotional  service.     They  formed   a 

lThc    Paul's    Boys   of   late   Eliza-  companies, 
betii    and    up    to    their    termination  :/.  c,  to  the  death  of  Elizabeth, 

early  in  the  reign  of  James  are  the  March  24,   1603. 
subject   of   treatment   only   in    their  "Practically,      1613;      nominally, 

contributive  relations  to  the  history  1615. 
of  these  royally  patronized  children- 


2  CHILDREN  OF  THE  CHAPEL  AT  BLACKFRIARS 

part  of  the  choral  body  which  takes  its  name  from  the  place  of 
worship,   namely,  the   Chapel   Royal. 

As  Rimbault  points  out  in  his  Introduction  to  The  Old  Cheque- 
Book,1  the  Chapel  Royal  is  the  most  ancient  choral  body  of  which 
there  is  any  authentic  record.  The  first  account  of  it  I  have 
found  is  in  the  Liber  Niger  Domus  Regis2  of  Edward  the 
Fourth's  reign,  near  the  middle  of  the  fifteenth  century.3  It  was 
then  constituted  of  one  "Deane,"  twenty-four  "Chaplenes  and 
clerkes,"  two  "yeomen"  or  "Pisteleres,"  eight  "children,"  one 
"Master  of  songe"  to  teach  the  Chapel  Boys  music,  and  one  "Mas- 
ter of  ye  Gramere"  to  provide  for  these  children  and  others  con- 
nected with  the  Court  somewhat  of  a  liberal  education. 

At  the  period  with  which  the  present  work  deals,  the  last  six 
years  of  Elizabeth  and  the  first  half  of  the  reign  of  James  I, 
the  official  constitution  was,4  Dean,  Sub-Dean,  Confessor  of  his 
Majesty's  household,  six  chaplains,  a  Master  of  the  Children, 
Clerk  of  the  Cheque,  first  and  second  Organist,  twenty-four 
Choristers,  called  Gentlemen  in  ordinary5  (and  the  same  or 
greater  number  of  substitutes  called  Gentlemen  extraordinary, 
who  served  without  pay  but  were  in  line  of  succession  to  a  va- 
cancy in  the  ranks  of  the  ordinary),  twelve  Children,  two  Epis- 
tlers,  two  Gospelers,  besides  the  officers  of  the  vestry  and  common 
servants. 

The  Chapel  Royal,  thus  constituted,  attended  the  sovereign 
wherever  resident,  according  to  ancient  custom,  and  as  a  whole 
or  in  part  accompanied  him  during  progresses  through  the  coun- 

lThe  Old  Cheque-Book,  or  Book  5Dec.   15,   1604,   as  appears   from 

of    Remembrance,     of     the     Chapel  a    warrant,    there    were    thirty-eight 

Royal  from  1561  to  1744  (ed.  E.  F.  Gentlemen  of  the  Chapel.     But  this 

Rimbault  for   The  Camden  Society,  seems  to  count  not  only  the  choris- 

lg72.)  ters  but  also  the  chief  officers.     See 

2 Liber  Niger  Domus  Regis  (Brit.  State    Papers,    Domestic.    James    I, 

Mus.,  Hart.  MS.  No.  293,  fol.  11-12 ;  xxxvi,   No.   69,    Public  Record   Of- 

No.    610,    fol.    24-27 ;    No.    642,    fol.  fice.     Also  noted  in  the  Calendar  of 

71-74.  and  fol.  132b. — New  pagina-  State    Papers,    Domestic,    Addenda 

tion  of  1893).  1 580- 1625,    450.      John    Stowe    (ed. 

3 Its  exact  date  is  not  more  nearly  E.    Howes),   Annals,    or   a   general 

known    than    that    it    was    written  Chronicle    of    England  .  .  .  to    end 

sometime   within   the   limits   of   Ed-  of    1631     (1631),    1037,    says    there 

ward  IV's  reign, — 4  March,  1461,  to  were  thirty-three  Gentlemen  of  the 

9   April,   1483.  Chapel  in  the  first  year  of  James  I. 

*Cf.  Rimbault.  op.  cit.,  60-62,  127-  See  also  the  King's  grant  of  aug- 

28;  but  see  also  156.  mentation,  u.  i.,  32. 


INTRODUCTION  3 

try.  For  example,  James  I  took  his  English  choristers,  men  and 
children,  with  him  on  his  journey  to  Scotland  in  1617, — greatly 
offending  his  countrymen  thereby.1 

A  place  of  service  was  provided  at  the  royal  expense;  likewise 
residence  for  members  of  the  chapter,  their  keep,  and  also  to  all 
but  the  children2  a  yearly  salary. 

Since  the  Restoration,  the  King's  Chapel  occupied  by  the  chap- 
ter has  been  the  little  oratory  of  St.  James's  Palace.  But  in 
James  I's  time  it  was  the  splendidly  appointed  chapel  at  White- 
hall, London.'5  This  was  used,  not  only  for  the  religious  services 
of  the  royal  household,  but  for  the  solemnization  of  treaties  be- 
tween Spain  and  England,  and  France  and  England ;  royal  and 
noble  baptisms,  churchings,  and  confirmations;  marriages  of  nu- 
merous of  the  nobility  in  presence  of  the  King ;  the  marriage  of 
Princess  Elizabeth  and  Frederick  Prince  Elector  Count  Palatine 
of  the  Rhine  in  161 3  ;  the  funeral  of  James  I  in  1625 ;  the  corona- 
tion of  Charles  I,  &c.4 

On  all  these  and  such  occasions  the  Gentlemen  of  the  Chapel 
partook  in  the  services  and  shared  in  the  fees, — often  5  /.  each.5 

1 A  humorous  bit  of  satire  on  the  children  were  on  this  date  al- 
Scottish  manners  and  customs,  evi-  lowed  an  additional  4  d.  daily, — not 
dently  written  by  an  Englishman  in  as  salary,  but  "as  an  augmentation 
James  I's  retinue  on  this  journey,  of  their  board  wages."  This  war- 
describes  how  the  Scotch  received  rant  was  drawn  in  accordance  with 
and  entertained  the  King,  how  they  the  general  grant  of  augmentation 
felt  about  his  religious  forms,  and  of  salaries  in  the  Chapel  Royal  se- 
especially  about  the  "singing  men"  cured  through  the  influence  of  sev- 
and  the  Children  of  the  Chapel.  eral  persons,  among  whom  was 
The  document  was  printed  in  a  Nathaniel  Gyles,  Master  of  the  chil- 
pamphlet  of  twenty-one  pages  at  dren.  The  grant  was  dated  Dec. 
London,  1659,  under  title,  A  Perfect  5,  1604.  It  is  printed  in  The  Old 
Description  of  the  People  and  Conn-  Chcquc-Book,  op.  cit.,  60,  and  in 
try  of  Scotland,  which  is  reprinted  John  Nichols,  The  Progresses,  /'re- 
in Francis  Osborne,  Secret  History  cessions  and  Magnificent  Festiz/ities 
of  the  Court  of  James  the  First  of  King  Tames  the  Firs!  (1838),  1. 
(1811),  II,  75-89.  See  appositely  466,  from  Sir  John  Hawkin 
77.  79,  85.  General  History  of  the  Science  and 
rhe  original  MS.  is  preserved  in  Practice  of  Music  (1776),  IV,  li- 
the British  Museum.  For  the  most  12.  [Nichols  errs  in  saying  ho  takes 
pertinenl    part   see   Harl.   MS.    No.  it  from  p.  15.] 

ill,  fol.  276a.    J.  P.  Collier,  History  "See  Rev.  John  Jchb,  The  Choral 

of    English    Dramatic    Poetry    and  Service    of    the    United    Church    of 

Annals  of  the  Stage  (1879*) ,  I,  391,  England  and  Ireland  (1843),  L48. 
printed   the   paragraph   on   the  chil-  4See  notices  of  these  various  uses 

dren    only.  of    the    Chapel    Royal    in    The    (''Id 

'The    warrant    in    State    Papers,  Cheque-Booh    (u.  s.),  passim. 
Dec.     15,    1604     («.    s.,    2°)    shows  'Idem. 


4  CHILDREN  OF  THE  CHAPEL  AT  BLACKFRIARS 

The  Children  never  on  any  occasion  received  fees.  Consequently 
the  Clerk  of  the  Cheque  has  left  no  record  of  any  sort  concerning 
them,  since  his  official  duty  seems  to  have  been  largely  to  record 
such  receipts  by  members  of  the  chapter.  Despite  this  omission, 
the  Children  certainly  sang  with  the  men-choristers  at  all  solem- 
nities and  festivals  held  in  the  Chapel,  as  they  constituted  an 
essential  part  of  the  chorus. 

During  a  part  of  the  reign  of  Elizabeth  the  children  occasion- 
ally presented  plays  in  the  Chapel, — even  on  Sundays, — before 
the  Queen  and  her  Court.  As  early  as  1569  the  first  published 
record  of  feeling  that  has  reached  us  concerning  the  Children  as 
actors  shows  a  bitter  Puritanic  opposition  to  this  practice.1  The 
Queen,  however,  was  passionately  fond  of  the  drama,  and  be- 
sides patronizing  the  men's  companies  and  Paul's  boys  at  Court, 
she  continued  throughout  her  reign  occasionally  to  use  her  own 
Children  of  the  Chapel  to  gratify  her  pleasure.  In  her  closing 
years  she  extended  their  function  of  acting  beyond  occasional 
performances  in  the  Chapel,  and  established  them  as  a  permanent 
company  at  the  Blackfriars  with  requirements  to  act  a  play  every 
week.  With  the  increase  of  time,  the  spirit  of  Puritanism  grew 
an  important  factor  to  be  reckoned  with  in  the  government,  and 
Elizabeth's  theatrical  predilections  diminished  none.  In  her  Ma- 
jesty's fondness  for  the  drama,  however,  and  in  her  purpose  to 
carry  out  certain  theatrical  plans  rather  than  in  Puritanic  oppo- 
sition is  to  be  sought  the  cause  of  her  removing  the  performances 
of  the  Children  permanently  from  the  Chapel  Royal  and  estab- 
lishing with  them  in  1597  the  Blackfriars  theatre.  As  we  shall 
see  later,  she  in  effect  divided  the  Children  on  the  basis  of  func- 
tions, and  maintained  one  body  of  them  at  the  Chapel  Royal  as 
choristers,  the  other  at  Blackfriars  to  be  taught  in  music,  the 


^'Plaies    will    neuer   be   supprest,  The  attack  is  continued  in  a  later 

while  her  majesties  unfledged  min-  page  of  the  same  pamphlet  thus : — 

ions  flaunt   it  in   silkes  and  sattens.  ''Even  in  her   maiesties   chappel   do 

They  had  as  well  be  at  their  Popish  these  pretty  vpstart  youthes  profane 

service,    in    the   detiils   garments." —  the    Lordes    Day   by   the    lascivious 

The   Children   of   the   Chapel  strict  writhing  of  their  tender  limbs,  and 

and      whipt       (1569),      quoted      in  gorgeous   decking  of  their  apparell, 

Thomas   Warton,   History   of  Eng-  in   feigning  bawdie   fables   gathered 

lish  Poetry  (ed.  Hazlitt,  1871),  IV,  from  the  idolatrous  heathen  poets." 

217.  —Ibid. 


INTRODUCTION  5 

drama,  and  other  arts.  These  actor-children  were  kept  at  her  ex- 
pense, and  furnished  with  rich  and  abundant  stage-apparel. 

Out  of  the  original  Court-service  of  the  Children  of  the  Chapel 
evolved  the  sort  of  performance  they  later  presented  as  actors. 
It  was  not  a  long  step  from  religious  worship,  solemnizations, 
and  festivities,  for  the  Court  to  employ  their  excellent  singing 
at  other  times  simply  as  a  rich  musical  entertainment. 

At  what  time  plays  were  introduced  along  with  the  singing, 
or  in  addition  to  it,  or  in  place  of  it,  there  are  no  known  records 
by  which  we  can  determine.  But  as  far  back  as  the  development 
can  be  traced,  dialogue  and  acting  seem  to  have  dominated  the 
singing.  Near  the  close  of  Elizabeth's  reign,  the  entertainment 
at  Blackfriars  takes  the  form  of  a  delightful  musicalc  followed 
by  an  acted  play  containing  song  and  masque. 

The  plays  themselves  in  both  earlier  and  later  periods  were  in- 
terspersed with  songs  as  specialties.  During  the  Blackfriars 
period  under  Elizabeth,  the  Boys  exhibited  their  training  and 
skill  in  instrumental  music,  singing,  and  dancing,  at  intervals 
through  the  play.  In  most  of  their  plays  after  1600,  and  possibly 
in  their  lost  repertoire  of  the  three  years  before,  they  combined 
these  arts  into  a  single  exhibition,  by  putting  on  the  form  and 
variegated  dress  of  fairies,  nymphs,  or  other  creatures  of  fancy 
and  mingling  color,  music,  and  dance  into  the  pleasing  harmony 
of  the  masque. 

During  James  I  the  elements  of  dainty  device  in  music  and 
pleasing  show  are  less  prominent.  We  have  at  any  rate  no  record 
of  the  combined  musical  and  dramatic  entertainment  such  as  the 
Duke  of  Stettin  in  1602  reported  was  the  custom  at  Blackfriars. 
Music  between  the  acts,  however,  and  songs  throughout  the  play 
remained  though  a  diminished  yet  a  prominent  feature.  But  the 
feet  of  the  fairies  and  nymphs  grew  clogged  with  a  varied  clay, 
and  except  twice  neither  their  poets  found  invention  nor  the 
grown-up  boys  practice  in  the  care-free,  lissome  masque.  In 
these  heavier  years,  too,  the  tripping  step  of  comedy  gave  wax- 
to  the  serious  tread  of  tragedy. 

Chiefly  out  of  the  Court-performances  of  the  Children   in  the 

Queen's  Chapel  and  other  royal  halls1  evolved  the  private  thea- 

lThe  other  influence  was  the  nobility  is  reflex  rather  than  direct, 
church.    The  influence  of  school  and  A.  Albrecht,  Das  Englische  Kin- 


6  CHILDREN  OF  THE  CHAPEL  AT  BLACKFRIARS 

truin.  Farther  contributive  also  was  the  practice  of  public  re- 
hearsals by  the  Master  of  the  Revels,  leading  even  to  such  exhi- 
bitions by  the  Children  as  seen  at  Whitefriars  in  1580  and  at 
Blackfriars  1581-84. 

Nobility  imitating  royalty  provided  private  plays  at  weddings, 
at  the  Christmas  or  "Revels"  festival,  at  the  entertainment  of  the 
Queen  upon  progresses  through  the  country,  and  on  other  fes- 
tival occasions.  Their  theatrum  likewise  was  a  private  apart- 
ment or  hall  of  the  house  or  castle;  and  the  hearers,  invited 
guests. 

When  finally  the  private  theatre  found  a  permanent  home  the 
structure  naturally  took  as  its  distinguishing  feature  the  privacy 
of  the  noble  and  royal  hall.  The  hearers  could  not  be  enter- 
tained as  invited  guests ;  but  the  price  of  admission  was  placed  so 
high, — from  three  to  twelve  times  that  of  the  public  theatres, — 
that  the  audience  was  aristocratically  select. 

The  private  theatre  of  first  importance  in  origin  and  influence 
was  the  Blackfriars,  established  1597  under  patronage  of  the 
Queen.  It  was  in  fact  what  may  be  called  an  aristocratic  public 
playhouse,  with  galleries,  private  boxes  or  "lords'  rooms,"  arti- 
ficial lighting,  select  audiences,  seats  in  the  pit  as  well  as  in  all 

dcrtheater    (Diss.    Halle,    1883),    1,  and    nobility    are    seen    in    such    as 

traces  the  origin  of  the  private  the-  Merchant     Taylor's      (Mulcaster's) 

atre    to    the    Catholic    church,    and  school,  Westminster,  Eton,  Oxford, 

specifically  to  a  cathedral  school  for  &c,   and    in    such    ephemeral,    often 

training  boys  to  sing  in  the  church  elaborate,    representations    in    noble 

service,    established    at    Rome,    590.  houses   as  historical   records   report 

But    we    should    find    ourselves    on  on  special  occasions, 
safer   ground  if  we  should  trace  it  All    these   minor   influences   have 

back  to  man's  creation, — to  the  Gar-  practically   nothing   to   do   with   the 

den    of    Eden.      Or,    seriously,    the  development    in   question,    although 

source  is  not  an  institution,  but  man  some  have   thought  so.     I   am  pre- 

as  the  maker  of  institutions.     Man's  senting   of   course   the   private   the- 

nature  is  dramatic  and  craves  rep-  atre  as  a  factor  in  the  drama,  and 

resentation,    as    exhibited    from   the  the    immediate    conditions    that    led 

child,  the  ignorant,  and  the  sage  of  to   it,   not  the   remote  or  the  unre- 

today,  back  to  the  acts  of  primitive  lated.      The    only   period   when    the 

man.     Church  and  sovereign  became  private   theatre   was    such    a    factor 

first  sources  of  influence  because  of  is  the  period  treated  in  the  present 

their    larger    power    to    institution-  work,      1597-1613.      The     preceding 

alize   man's  innate  desire.     But   the  years    of    Elizabeth    were    but    pre- 

uninstitutionalized  drama  and  stage  paratory   to   it,    and   the   succeeding 

is    the   home,    the    field,    the    street,  years     of     James     and     the     two 

wherever  two  or  more  people  meet.  Charleses  but  echoes  of  it. 
The    reflex    influences    of    school 


INTRODUCTION  1 

other  parts  of  the  house,  and  special  privileges  of  sitting  on  the 
stage. 

The  only  other  private  playhouse  at  the  close  of  Elizabeth's 
reign  was  Paul's,  where  a  theatre  was  maintained  by  the  church 
under  favor  of  the  Queen. 

The  Blackfriars,  Paul's,  and  Whitefriars  constitute  the  early 
Jacobean  list  of  private  theatres.  All  were  occupied,  as  we  shall 
see,  by  children-companies, — a  fact  of  large  significance  in  the- 
atrical and  dramatic  history. 

Blackfriars  and  Whitefriars  were  the  "Great  Halls"  of  the  old 
monasteries  of  these  names,  refitted  to  new  uses.  That  is,  they 
were  simply  large  monastic  houses  rearranged.  Paul's  was,  as 
it  seems,  the  church  Singing  School  "back  of  the  convocation 
house."1  There  is  no  record  of  any  galleries  in  either  Paul's  or 
Whitefriars.  They  seem  to  have  had  no  larger  seating  capacity 
than  that  afforded  by  one  doer.  Tt  appears  that  Whitefriars 
room,  however,  was  larger  than  Blackfriars,  while  Paul's  was 
smaller. 

The  public  theatre,  of  more  plebeian  origin  and  patronage, 
evolved  out  of  the  four-walled  coach-court  of  the  public  inn. 
Like  man's  first  temples,  it  was  open  to  the  sky  and  lighted  b) 
the  heavens.  The  great  yard  where  the  groundlings  made  merry 
was  not  seated.  But  rows  of  galleries,  after  the  manner  of  the 
inn-balconies,  ran  around  three  sides  and  were  provided  with 
seats.  A  thatched  shed-like  roof  overhung  the  balconies  and  the 
tiring-house.  A  part  or  all  of  the  stage  was  protected  by  a  long 
sloping  roof  called  "the  heavens."2 

'Richard  Flccknoe,  A  Short  Dis-  Gaedertz   in   Zur  Kenntnis  dcr  Alt- 

e    of    the    English    Stage    (ca.  englischen  Biihne  (1888),  and  since 

1660),  in  English  Drama  and  Stage  then    has    been    generously    repro- 

under      the      Tudor     and     Stuart  duccd   in   most   of  the  publications 

Princes,  T543-1664  (ed.  W.  C.  Haz-  on  the  period 
litt,  Roxburghe  Library.   L869),  276.  The  next  oldest  picture  of  an  in- 

3In    1888    Dr.    K.    Th.    Gaedertz  terior  is  on  the  title  page  of  a 

red  in  the  library  at  Utrecht  play,    Roxana,    1632.       The    Roxana 

the  only  known  view  of  the  interior  and    the    Messalina    I  L640)    picture, 

of  an   Elizabethan  theatre.     It  is  a  both   with    full    title  page   from   the 

cacl    sketch   of  the   inte-  British    Museum,    are    well    repro- 

rior  of  the  Swan,  of  probablj    1596,  duced    1>\    <i.    F.    Reynolds,    Some 

by  Axend  van  Buchell  after  the  de-  Principles    of    Elizabethan    Staging 

scription  of  his  friend  Johannes  de  (Modern  Philology,  1904  •'..  1! 

Witt,  Priesl  of  St  Mary's,  (Jtrecht.  B3).     The  Roxana  picture  is  badly 

The    sketch    was    published    by    Dr.  reproduced  by   W.   Keller  in  Shake- 


8  CHILDREN  OF  THE  CHAPEL  AT  BLACKFRIARS 

The  advantages  of  the  private  theatre  buildings  of  the  chil- 
dren-companies recommended  themselves  to  the  theatrical  public 
at  once  as  an  advance  in  playhouse  evolution.  The  patronage 
of  the  Blackfriars  is  sufficient  index  in  itself.  Paul's  reopened 
soon  after,  and  Whitefriars  began  early  in  the  reign  of  James. 
Even  in  the  first  half  of  the  reign  of  James  I,  one  more  was  added 
to  the  list  of  private  theatres.  This  was  the  Cockpit,1  built  on 
the  model  of  Blackfriars. 

The  new  Globe,  built  in  1613-14,  can  hardly  have  failed  to 
adopt  some  of  the  improved  features  of  the  Blackfriars,  which 
was  then  occupied  by  the  same  company.  At  least  its  modern, 
up-to-date  accommodations  were  such  that  it  was  reported  at  the 
time  to  be  of  all  theatres  "the  fairest  that  ever  was  in  England."2 


speare-Jahrbuch  (1898),  xxxiv,  324, 
and  both  are  presented  in  miniature 
by  G.  P.  Baker,  The  Development 
of  Shakespeare  as  a  Dramatist 
(1907),  270.  The  Roxana  and  the 
Messalina  are  pictures  of  university 
stages. 

The  Red  Bull  picture  from  Kirk- 
man's  Drolls  (1672),  certainly  many 
years  older  however  than  the  date 
indicates,   has   been  often  printed. 

A  contract  by  Henslowe  and  Al- 
leyn  with  Peter  Street,  carpenter, 
Jan.  8,  1599-[1600],  for  building  the 
Fortune  on  the  style  of  the  Globe 
gives  detailed  specifications.  (In  J. 
O.  Halliwell-Phillips,  Outlines  of 
the  Life  of  Shakespeare,  9th  ed., 
1390,  I,  304 ;  E.  Malone,  Shakespeare 
Variorum,  ed.  Boswell,  1821,  III, 
338-43.) 

Another  contract  by  Henslowe 
and  Meade  with  Gilbert  Katherens, 
carpenter,  Aug.  29,  1613,  for  the 
building  of  the  Hope  (Bear  Gar- 
den )  on  the  plan  of  the  Swan  is 
also  helpful.  (Malone,  op.  cit.,  Ill, 
::4:;-47;   Baker,  op.   cit.,  320-25). 

The  Diary  of  Thomas  Platter  in 
the  university  library  at  Basel  gives 
much  information  on  the  public  the- 
atres of  1599, — Curtain,  Bear  Gar- 
den, and  Globe.  (Extracts  by  Prof. 
Gustav  Binz,  Londoner  Theater  und 
Schauspiele  im  Jahre  1599,  in  An- 
glia    (1899),  xxii,  456-64. 


These  sources  agree  in  the  most 
general  features  and  furnish  most 
of  the  knowledge  we  possess  of 
such   interiors. 

Some  additional  sources  are  pre- 
sented in   the  present  work. 

Many  references  in  the  plays 
themselves  and  in  other  contempo- 
rary literature  here  and  there  give 
us  the  feel  of  what  it  would  be  to 
see  a  play  there. 

Stage-directions  and  other  evi- 
dences of  acting  furnish  a  source 
for  scientific  investigation  that  has 
never  yet  been  satisfactorily  worked 
out.  The  latest  attempts  are  by 
Cecil  Brodmeier,  Die  Shakespeare- 
Biilinc  notch  den  alten  Buhnenan- 
zeeisungen  (Diss.  Jena,  1904).  and 
G.  F.  Reynolds,  op.  cit.,  who  makes 
a  tentative  study  with  a  promise  of 
a  complete  treatise  on  the  right  line 
of  considering  the  theatres  individ- 
ually. 

xThe  date  of  building  is  not  sure. 
J.  P.  Collier,  op.  cit.,  Ill,  136,  takes 
it  to  be  about  1616-17.  F.  G. 
Fleay,  A  Chronicle  History  of  the 
London  Stage  (1890),  299,  368, 
dates  it  1617.  There  is  some  evi- 
dence of  an  earlier  dating.  But 
upon  reconsideration  it  seems  not 
sufficient  for  a  final  statement, 
though  it  may  prove  correct. 

2  Infra,  35\ 


INTRODUCTION  9 

Even  as  the  Blackfriars  and  the  other  private  theatres1  were 
beginning  to  make  their  influence  felt,  the  old  public  theatre- 
structures  were  beginning  to  pass  out  of  existence  into  history.2 
On  the  other  hand,  "public"  performances  soon  took  possession 
of  the  private  theatres.  Consequently,  the  invidious  distinction 
of  "public"  and  "private"  theatres  set  up  by  Elizabeth  in  1597 
was  lost  sight  of  within  the  next  generation.  Salisbury  Court 
theatre,  built  in  1629,  was  the  last  of  the  "private"  sort.  All  the- 
atres of  later  date'  were  "public"  but  with  the  chief  features  of 
the  original  "private"  house  of  the  Blackfriars,  while  "private" 
theatres  reverted  to  what  the}-  had  previously  been  and  what  they 
still  are  today, — merely  a  temporary  room  or  hall  for  occasional 
or  amateur  acting.  The  new  Globe  was  built  1614,  and  the  new 
Fortune,  1622.  These  were  the  last  "public"  theatres  of  the  old 
architecture.  All  theatres  from  that  time  to  the  present  have 
been  modeled  on  the  general  plan  of  the  private  theatres  as  first 
established  at  Blackfriars.4 

Likewise  our  modern  orchestral  pracludium,  corresponding  to 
the  Chapel  Children's  introductory  "mv.sica  iiistnimeutalis"  at 
Blackfriars,  as  also  our  present  orchestral  interludia  between  acts 
and  scenes,  corresponding  to  the  intermezzos  of  various  sorts  of 
musical  instruments  by  the  same  Boys,  can  be  traced  directly  to 
them  and  not  to  the  public  theatres.  The  latter  had  at  the  close 
of  Elizabeth  and  beginning  of  James  almost  no  music.  In  the 
plays  of  all  the  children-companies  music  is  a  prominent  part  of 
the  performance, — more  at  Blackfriars  and  Paul's  under  Eliza- 
beth, as  noted  before,  than  at  the  same  or  other  theatres  under 
James. 

Music  was  always  one  of  the  distinguishing  features  of  the 
private  houses  of  the  children-companies.     Their  plays  even   as 

'Blackfriars    (1597— Aug.   6,  both  — after    1663);    Globe    (1599— 

1655);    Paul's    (1598—?);    Wbite-  April     15,    1044);    Fortune.     (1600- 

friars   (ca.  1603  —  ca.  1621);   Cock-  49);      Bear     Garden     (  ?—  1613); 

pit    (?  — March    24.    1649);    Salis-  Hope    (1613—25    March.    1656). 

bury    Court    (1629 ;    after    the  For  certain  terminal  dates  in  this 

Restoration).  and   the   preceding  note,    see    docu- 

2The    Theatre    (1576-9S)  ;    Cur-  ment   communicated   in   a   letter   by 

tain   (1577  — early  James  I);  New-  F.  J.  Furnivall.  The  End  of  Shake- 

1    Butts   (    ?  —  early  James   I);  spcare's  Theatres,  in    The  Academy 

Rose    (1592     nol   used  as  playhouse  (1882),  x\ii.  314-15. 

after  1603);  Swan   (ca.  1596  — early  'I.e.,  after   the   Restoration. 

James  I);  Red  Bull  (ca.  late  Eliza-  *Cf.  infra,   18*,  37  M 


10  CHILDREN  OF  THE  CHAPEL  AT  BLACKFRIARS 

they  have  reached  us  brim  with  it.  The  songs  are  generally  in- 
dicated and  given  in  full.  So  prominent  is  this  feature  that  a 
play  of  undeclared  authorship  containing  many  songs, — as  His- 
triomastix, — can  with  practical  certainty  be  assigned  to  a  chil- 
dren's company. 

The  instrumental  music  naturally  could  not  so  well  be  recorded. 
Yet  numerous  plays  of  the  children  give  stage-directions  for  it. 
From  the  testimony  of  Gerschow,  secretary  to  the  Duke  of  Stet- 
tin, in  1602  the  music  program  introductory  to  the  play  at  Black- 
friars  was  an  hour  long.  But  this  custom  is  recorded  in  no  pub- 
lished drama ;  nor  is  the  modern  custom  today  that  has  grown 
out  of  it. 

The  public  theatres  had  not  yet  in  1604  adopted  the  music  in- 
troductions and  interspersions  of  the  private  house.1  But  soon 
after  the  Burbage  company  took  over  the  Blackfriars  (1608),2 
they  began  to  develop  this  side  of  their  performance  on  the  lines 
followed  by  the  former  Boys  there.3  The  Blackfriars  orchestra 
under  their  management  became  famous.4  I  have  read  that  mu- 
sicians even  paid  for  the  privilege  of  playing  in  it,  but  know  no 
proof  of  the  statement. 

1The  Induction  to   The  Malcon-  style  and  hand.     But  the  handwrit- 

tent  as   played  by  the  King's   Men  ing    did    not    differ    widely    enough 

at    the   Globe    in    1604   has   the   fol-  between    1599    and    ten   years    later, 

lowing: —  when    music   became   more   general, 

"Sly.     What  are  your  additions?  for  this  evidence  to  amount  to  any- 

Burbage.  Sooth,  not  greatly  thing.  And  if  only  one  direction 
needful ;  only  as  your  salad  to  your  is  even  probably  that  old  the  evi- 
feast,  to  entertain  a  little  more  time,  dence  is  valueless, 
and  to  abridge  the  not-received  cus-  J.  P.  Collier,  op.  cit.,  Ill,  252, 
torn  of  music  in  our  theatre.  I  while  not  declaring  himself  square- 
must  leave  you,  sir."  ly,  seems  to  hold  with  Malone. 

Yet    Malone,    op.    cit.,    Ill,    111,  2  Infra,  4410. 

judges  from  a  cited  isolated  exam-  3 Certain  of  the  Boys  were  taken 

pie   from   Gammer  Gurton's  Needle  into   the    Burbage   company   at   this 

(acted  ca.  1566;  printed  1575)   that  time.      Shakespeare's    The    Tempest 

music     between     acts     characterized  is    probably    his    first    play    written 

the    theatre    from    its    infancy.      He  for  the  Blackfriars.     See  infra,  167. 

adds,    "In    a    copy    of    Romeo    and  4The  fame  of  the  Blackfriars  or- 

Juiiet-   1599.  now  before  me,  which  chestra    long   endured    as   the    fore- 

certainly  belonged  to  the  playhouse,  most    music    organization    of    Lon- 

the  endings  of  the  acts  are  marked  don.     Lord  Commissioner  Bulstrode 

in   the   margin:    and   directions    are  Whitelocke     (1605-75),    writing    an 

given   for   musick   to  be   played  be-  elaborate   and  clear  account  of  the 

tween  each  act."     He  believes  these  masque,   with    antimasques,   of    The 

directions    are    of    "very    old    date"  Triumph  of  Peace  by  James  Shirley 

because  one  of  them  is   in   ancient  (played   at   Whitehall,   7   Charles   I 


INTRODUCTION 


11 


At  what  time  the  other  public  companies  fell  in  line  with  this 
progress  of  the  stage  is  not  known.  It  may  not  have  been  long 
after.  Certain  it  is  that  by  the  time  of  the  Restoration  music  was 
regarded  by  the  stage  monopoly  of  D'Avenant  and  Killigrew  as 
an  elaborate  essential. — But  that  has  a  history  of  its  own. 

Both  public  and  private  theatres  opened  with  three  bugle-blasts, 
blown  some  minutes  apart.1  This  was  not,  as  sometimes  under- 
stood,2 any  part  of  the  music,  but  an  announcement  of  "ready," — 
like  the  modern  signal  bell  of  the  German  theatre  calling  the 
audience  in  from  the  refreshment  rooms  when  an  act  is  ready  to 
begin ; — a  signal  reduced  in  American  theatres  to  the  winking 
of  the  lights. 

So  much  in  a  general  and  introductory  way  on  the  historical 
relation  and  function  of  the  Children  of  the  Chapel  Royal  as 
choristers,  their  occasional  function  of  play-acting  at  Court,  the 


(1  (>;;::)  by  the  members  of  the  four 
Inns  of  Court,  with  the  elaborate 
music  in  charge  of  Whitelocke) 
gives  incidentally  a  word  on  the 
fame  of  Blackfriars  music  thus : — 
"1  was  so  conversant  with  the 
musitians,  and  so  willing  to  gaine 
their  favour,  especially  at  this  time, 
that  I  composed  an  Aier  myselfe, 
with  the  assistance  of  Mr.  Ives,  and 
called  it  Whitelocke' s  Coranto: 
which  being  cried  up,  was  first 
played  publiquely,  by  the  Blacke- 
fryar's  Musicke,  who  were  then  es- 
teemed the  best  of  common  mu- 
sitians in  London.  Whenever  I 
came  to  that  house  (as  I  did  some- 
times in  those  dayes),  though  not 
often,  to  see  a  play,  the  musitians 
would  presently  play  Whitclocke's 
Cur. into,  and  it  was  so  often  called 
for,  that  they  would  have  it  played 
twice  or  thrice  in  an  afternoon. 
...  It  grew  to  that  request,  that 
all  the  common  musitians  in  this 
towne  and  all  over  the  kingdome, 
gott  the  composition  of  it,  and 
played  it  publiquely  in  all  places, 
for  above  thirtie  years  after." — Dr. 
Charles  Burney,  A  General  History 
of  Music  (1789),  TTI,  377,  from 
Whitelocke's  MS.  then  owned  by 
Dr.   C.   Morton  of  the  British   Mu- 


seum. The  last  part  of  this  docu- 
ment containing  the  payment  to  the 
musicians,  preparation  of  the  mu- 
sic, and  the  above  passage,  is 
omitted  from  Whitelocke's  Memo- 
rials of  English  Affairs  &c.  (17091; 
18532),  T,  62,  which  modernizes 
spellings,  and  gives  the  general  air 
of  unfaithful   editing. 

The  excellence  of  the  music  at 
the  private  theatres  of  Blackfriars, 
Cockpit,  and  Salisbury  Court  is  spe- 
cially mentioned  in  the  well-known 
little  tract  of  which  the  only  extant 
copy  of  the  original  edition  is  in 
the  British  Museum,  entitled.  The 
Actors'  Remonstrance  (1643),  6-7. 
Reprinted  in  The  British  Stage 
(1822),  VI:  The  English  Drama 
and  Stage  (ed.  W.  C.  Hazlitt,  The 
Roxburghe  Library,  I860)  :  and 
Hindley's  Miscellanea  Antigua  An- 
glicana   (1S71).   III. 

'A  large  number  of  instances 
might  he  cited.  But  for  examples, 
see  Inductions  to  Cynthia's  Revels 
and  Poetaster  al  Blackfriars;  and 
Dekker's  Address  to  the  Reader  in 
Satiromastix,—f\xs\  played  at  the 
Globe,  later  at   Paul's. 

"See  for  example  Nathan  Drake, 
Shakespeare  and  'lis  Times  (1817), 
II,   317. 


12  CHILDREN  OF  THE  CHAPEL  AT  BLACKFRIARS 

consequent  rise  of  the  private  theatre  of  1 597-1613  through  them, 
the  differentiation  of  the  private  and  the  public  theatres,  the  na- 
ture of  the  entertainments  in  each,  and  some  of  the  general  re- 
sults and  influences. 

Yet  a  farther  introductory  word. 

The  chief  influences  of  the  children-companies  are  less  tangible 
and  concern  the  drama  proper.  Here  it  is  not  possible  to  state 
facts  with  that  gross  objectiveness,  ease,  and  precision  with 
which  boys  plump  marbles.  Nor  have  I  in  the  following  pages 
attempted  to  study  this  field  exhaustively  by  citations  and  inter- 
pretations,— a  separate  work  in  itself. 

The  period  of  supreme  dramatic  achievement  of  the  world's 
history  is  practically  the  same  as  the  period  of  growth,  develop- 
ment, and  end  of  the  children-companies  in  the  field  of  competi- 
tion,— 1597-1613.  Is  this  merely  a  coincidence,  or  is  there  some 
relation  existing  between  the  two?  It  would  be  a  view  too  in- 
judicial to  require  evidence  in  disproof  to  say  the  children  "car- 
ried it  away"  in  this  development.  They  were  simply  one  of  the 
factors.  The  passionless  glass  and  forthright  scalpel,  however, 
show  them  as  a  large  factor. 

It  strikes  us  as  somewhat  astounding  when  we  look  over  the 
list  of  extant  plays  written  and  acted  within  this  period  of  dra- 
matic splendor  and  see  that  fully  one-half  were  produced  for  and 
enacted  by  these  children-companies.  In  the  reign  of  James  I 
up  to  1613,  the  ratio  is  greater  than  one-half.  If  we  take  the 
period  from  1604  to  1608,  we  find  the  balance  even  more  con- 
siderable on  the  side  of  the  children. 

This  is  significant. 

It  is  further  significant  that  every  great  dramatist  of  the  period 
except  Shakespeare  wrote  for  the  children.  Jonson,  who  by 
common  agreement  stands  next  to  Shakespeare  as  contemporary 
poet  and  dramatist,  did  much  more  than  apprentice  work  for 
them.  He  began  his  career  with  the  children  in  1597.  and  thir- 
teen years  later  made  his  highest  achievement  before  their  public 
in  Epicoene,  '  Chapman  ranks  at  farthest  close  after  Jonson. 
After  his  apprenticeship  for  the  public  theatres  under  Henslowe. 
ending  in  1599,  he  wrote  for  no  other  players  than  the  children, 
so  long  as  their  companies  existed.    Beaumont  and  Fletcher,  who 


INTRODUCTION  13 

vie  with  Jonson  and  Chapman  for  place,  demonstrated  their  dra- 
matic power  through  the  same  means  of  appeal  to  the  public  until 
King  James  terminated  the  Blackfriars  Children  in  1608.  Still 
five  more  of  their  chief  plays  were  presented  by  the  Boys  at 
Whitefriars  from  1610  to  1612.  Only  with  the  beginning  of  the 
period  of  dissolution  of  the  children  did  these  poets  give  their 
plays  to  the  King's  men  at  Blackfriars  and  the  Globe. 

All  these  are  great  names.  Between  these  and  the  numerous 
minor  playwrights  stand  Marston,  Middleton,  Webster,  Dekker, 
and  Day,  all  connected,  in  their  best  work,  with  the  private- 
playhouse  children. 

It  would  not  be  true  to  say  that  the  children's  theatre,  with 
Blackfriars  as  chief  representative,  was  a  sort  of  primary  school 
for  bringing  up  play-wrights  and  developing  actors,  as  the  "Nurs- 
ery" of  1664  aimed  chiefly  to  be.  Nevertheless,  it  gave  to  genius 
an  opportunity  to  express  itself  in  both  fields.  No  men's  com- 
pany except  Shakespeare's  invited  or  afforded  such  freedom. 
The  men's  plays,  with  that  illustrious  exception,  were  mainly 
hack-work,  many  of  them  collaborations.  As  a  result,  they  have 
little  originality,  inspiration,  or  individuality.  Their  jejuneness, 
staleness  of  invention  and  expression,  and  general  paucity  was 
the  butt  of  Jonson's  ridicule, — and  justly.  Such  conditions  could 
not  inspire  great  acting.  Consequently,  not  one  of  these  unex- 
cepted  men's  companies  produced  a  single  renowned  actor. 

Quite  different  were  the  conditions  in  the  Burbage-Shake- 
speare  company  and  the  children-companies,  particularly  the  one 
at  Blackfriars.  In  both  instances  the  plays  were  written,  not  for 
the  common  pot  of  a  Henslowean  dramatic  pawn-shop  or  literary 
bureau,  but  directly  for  the  actors.1  As  a  result  they  were  gen- 
erally not  collaborations,  but  the  work  of  individual  authors. 
They  showed  that  the  way  to  develop  genius  is  not  to  voke  it  to 
its  fellows,  but  to  free  it  from  the  furrow,  and  let  both  feel  and 
wings  aid  in  the  running.  Great  genius  never  did  nor  can  col- 
laborate great  art.    The  single  Praxitiles,  or  Giotto,  or  Raphael, 

lThe    proposition   that    the    chil-  intended  to  be  serious.     See    V    \1- 

dren  acted  such  plays,  mostly  sple-  brecht.   Das   Englische   Kinderthea- 

netic,  as  were  rejected  by  the  men-  ter    (Diss.    Halle,    1883),   39. 
companies    would    be    funny    if   not 


14  CHILDREN  OF  THE  CHAPEL  AT  BLACKFRIARS 

or  Shakespeare,  or  Wagner  is  greater  than  the  collaborating 
world. 

The  actors  too  enjoyed  a  similar  freedom,  and  were  not  im- 
pecunious dependents.  The  conditions  under  which  both  author 
and  actor  worked  were  conducive  to  excellence  of  art  in  its  kind. 

It  is  noteworthy  of  the  authors  who  wrote  for  both  the  chil- 
dren and  the  men's  companies,  aside  from  Eurbage's, — namely 
-Mi'ldletom  Webster,  Dekker,  Day, — that  their  plays  for  the  chil- 
dren are  better  than  those  for  the  men.  Of  those  who  wrote 
exclusively  for  the  unexcepted  men's  companies, — as  Wilkins, 
Smith,  Rowley,  Heywood,  Chettle,  Monday,  Houghton,  Wilson, 
and  a  few  more,1 — none  rank  with  the  chief  authors  of  the  chil- 
dren-actors, and  most  of  them  are  little  if  any  superior  to  the 
poorest, — those  who  wrote  for  the  Children  of  the  King's  Revels 
exclusively  or  mainly, — Sharpham,  Armin,  Mason,  Barry,  and 
Markham. 

Besides  several  other  excellent  actors,  two  of  the  three  Roscii 
of  the  time  were  fledged  in  this  "aery"  of  "little  eyases,"  and 
several  others  became  famous.  As  will  fully  appear  later,  the 
boys  of  the  children-companies,  grown  men,  ultimately  dominated 
the  stage.  Their  members,  after  their  own  organizations  closed, 
are  found  as  leaders  thereafter  in  every  company  but  one,  and  for 
more  than  fifty  years  their  influence  was  a  factor  in  the  theatre 
and  drama. 

But  the  children-theatre  was  in  no  respect  a  primary  school  to 
the  "common  players."  It  was  a  lively  competitor,  both  dra- 
matically and  commercially.  Shakespeare  felt  that  the  competi- 
tion was  more  on  the  latter  than  on  the  former  side.  It  was,  so 
far  as  immediate  effects  were  concerned.  But  the  perspective 
of  history  shows  the  same  result  that  sharp  competition,  com- 
mercial or  other,  always  has, — the  putting  forth  of  effort  to  su- 
perior excellence.  It  stimulated  genius  in  the  dramatist  and  in 
the  actor,  gave  wider  range  of  opportunity  to  each,  and  added 
vastly  to  the  number  as  well  as  quality  of  plays  produced. 

It  is  not  possible  to  estimate  exactly  the  tremendous  stimulus 
to  dramatic  effort  by  this  new  element  of  competition  in  the  field. 
We  know  from  Henslowe's  Diary,  which  has  to  do  only  with 

"Cf.  infra,  1632. 


INTRODUCTION  15 

men-companies,  that  from  one-half  to  two-thirds  of  the  plays 
named  therein  have  never  reached  us.  How  many  were  played 
by  companies  of  which  no  diary  record  was  kept  we  can  only 
conjecture.  And  how  many  were  written  and  never  accepted  it 
would  be  futile  to  attempt  to  investigate.  We  can  only  get  from 
contemporary  records  that  the  number  of  unknown  plays  was 
very  considerable. 

Of  the  children-companies,  we  can  identify  only  half  of  the 
court  plays.  It  is  quite  probable  that  more  than  half  of  their 
publicly  acted  plays  have  reached  us,  but  there  is  ample  evidence 
that  we  do  not  have  them  all.  In  the  case  of  the  Children  of  the 
King's  Revels  at  Whitefriars,  as  we  shall  see,  there  were  condi- 
tions that  practically  prevented  publishing  any  of  their  plays 
while  the  company  existed.  It  is  remarkable  that  we  have  any 
of  their  plays  at  all. 

It  is  impossible  to  characterize  the  children's  plays  in  the  gross 
except  very  generally.  Some  have  literary  merit,  many  fall  short. 
With  the  exception  of  those  by  Jonson  and  Chapman,  their  com- 
edies and  comic  situations  of  tragedies  have  generally  a  low 
moral  tone ;  not  differing  in  that  respect,  however,  very  greatly 
from  the  rest  of  the  plays  of  the  age.  On  the  whole  they  are 
fuller  of  personal,  political,  and  local  allusions  than  those  of  the 
men-companies.  Their  tragedies  contain  much  rant,  bombast, 
and  turgidity.  Their  plays  seem  to  take  color  not  a  little  from 
the  courtly,  fashionable,  or  smart  audiences  and  from  the  irre- 
sponsible nature  of  the  actors.  The  irresponsibleness  of  the 
youthful  actors  can  not  but  account  at  least  in  part  for  the  po- 
litical indiscretions  of  Eastward  Ho,  The  Isle  of  Gulls,  and  the 
two  Biron  tragedies. 

By  Elizabeth's  favor  and  patronage  of  the  Blackfriars  Boys, 
children-companies,  and  particularly  this  company,  became  the 
fad.  It  took  the  genius  of  Shakespeare  to  counterbalance  their 
influence.  From  his  testimony  of  how  he  felt  about  them,  it  is 
probable  that  their  competition  was  one  of  the  factors  that  en- 
tered into  the  best  efforts  of  his  genius.  Good  plays  and  good 
acting  by  his  company  were  the  necessary  countervail. 

Thus  much  for  a  background. 

A  knowledge  of  the  proper  place  and  relation  of  these  chil- 


16  CHILDREN  OF  THE  CHAPEL  AT  BLACKFRIARS 

dren-companies  in  the  development  of  both  theatre  and  drama 
gives  just  recognition  to  the  value  of  every  slightest  detail  of 
their  history.  Hitherto  nothing  very  definite  has  been  known 
about  the  Children  of  the  Chapel  at  Blackfriars  and  their  off- 
springs, the  Children  of  the  Revels  under  James,  their  careers 
and  influences.  It  is  hoped  that  the  following  pages,  based  upon 
original  records,  documents,  and  the  plays,  may  contribute  to 
definiteness  and  add  to  the  sum  of  knowledge. 

The  history  developing  out  of  preceding  conditions  and  evolv- 
ing into  the  influences  noted  concerns  itself  specifically  with  the 
companies  of  children,  -their  playhouses,  management,  member- 
ship, and  performances.  The  boys  do  not  emerge  into  individual 
prominence  until  they  approach  the  end  of  their  career.  They 
are  from  the  first  little  more  than  puppets  in  the  hands  of  their 
superiors.  Hence  their  history  is  very  much  the  history  of  their 
managers. 

The  point  of  main  divergence  in  the  evolution  of  the  Chapel 
Children,  swinging  them  into  the  active  current  of  dramatic  com- 
petition, dates  from  the  first  royal  commission  to  Nathaniel  Gyles 
for  taking  up  children,  and  the  opening  of  the  Blackfriars  by 
Henry  Evans,  1597.  The  termination  of  the  theatrical  activity 
of  the  resulting  Children  of  the  Revels  companies  is  1 6 t 3—  [  1 5 ] . 
Imitations  and  echoes  of  this  activitv  continue  to  the  Restoration. 


CHAPTER 


THE  BLACKFRIARS  THEATRE  BUILDING 


The  remodeling  of  one  of  the  Priory  buildings  of  the  dissolved 
monastery  of  the  Blackfriars  at  Ixmdon  into  a  theatre,  the  leas- 
ing of  it  by  Richard  Burbage  to  Henry  Evans  for  a  playhouse, 
and  the  taking  up  of  children  therefor  under  the  first  royal  com- 
mission to  Nathaniel  Gyles,  Master  of  the  Children  of  the  Chapel 
Royal,  date  the  beginning  of  this  history.  These  three  events 
took  place  in  1596-97. 

February  4,  1596,  James  Burbage,  "the  first  builder  of  play- 
houses,"1 purchased  through  Sir  Thomas  Cawarden's  executor, 
Sir  William  More  of  Losely,  for  £6oo2  certain  "romes"  of  the 
dissolved  monastery  "of  the  late  Blackfryers  Preachers."3  In 
November  he  was  engaged  in  remodeling  the  structure  for  a  the- 
atre,4 in  which  month  the  inhabitants  of  the  precinct  petitioned5 

1635  Share  Papers  (w.  s.). 

"Deed  of  Sir  William  More  to 
James  Burbage,  4  February,  1595- 
[6].  Original  indenture  at  Loseley 
House.  Abstracts  in  Appendix  to 
Seventh  Report  of  the  Royal  Com- 
mission on  Historical  Manuscripts 
under  "The  Manuscripts  of  William 
More  Molyneux,  Esq.,  of  Loseley 
Park,  Guildford,  co.  Surrey" 
(1879),  653&.  In  extenso  in  Halli- 
well-Phillips,   op.    cit.,    I,   299-304. 

^Petition  of  the  Inhabitants  of 
Blackfriars,  u.  i. 

'Petition  of  the  Inhabitants  of 
Blackfriars  Precinct  to  the  Queen's 
Privy  Council,  [Nov.,  1596].  The 
original  document  has  not  come  to 
light.  But  an  undated  copy  of  it 
made  ca.  1631  is  preserved  in  the 
English  national  archives,  the  Pub- 
lic Record  Office,  State  Papers,  Do- 
mestic. Rliz.,  eclx,  116.  Printed 
frequently;  e.  g.,  Halliwell-Phillips, 
op.  cit.,  I,  304. 

The    petition    does    not    give    the 


1  The  Globe-Blackfriars  Share 
Papers  of  1635,  i»  J-  O.  Halliwell- 
Phillips,  Outlines  of  the  Life  of 
Shakespeare  (9th  ed.  1890),  I,  317. 
James  Burbage  built  "The  Theatre" 
in  1576,  which  was  in  fact  the  first 
modern  theatre  in  England.  But 
the  commonly  accepted  view  that 
this  is  the  earliest  theatre-building 
in  England  is  not  quite  correct. 
Upon  the  contemporary  evidence  of 
Bishop  Grandisson  there  was  a  the- 
atre in  existence  in  which  "ludi" 
were  presented  at  Exeter  in  1348. 
See  two  Latin  mandates  of  the 
Bishop  directed  against  the  doings 
at  this  theatre,  printed  in  Register 
of  Bishop  Grandisson  (ed.  F.  C. 
IliiiLceston-Randolph),  H,  1055, 
1120 ;  reprinted  in  part,  with  com- 
ments, in  E.  K.  Chambers,  The 
Mediaeval  Stage  (1903),  I,  383,  II, 
190. 

2  "Our  father  purchased  it  at  ex- 
treame  rates,"  say  Cuthbert,  Wini- 
fred   and    William    Burbage   in    the 


18 


CHILDREN  OF  THE  CHAPEL  AT  BLACKFRIARS 


against  his  procedure.1  The  opposition  however  went  for  noth- 
ing.2 The  work  of  reconstruction  was  completed  and  the  ancient 
Priory  received,  under  permission  of  Elizabeth,  the  new  baptism 
of  the  drama  by  which  it  became  in  its  time  the  most  famous,  and 
historically  as  the  model  of  the  modern  theatre-building,  the  most 
important  structure  in  English  stage-history.3 

The  long  prevalent  erroneous  belief  that  Shakespeare  was  con- 
nected with  the  Blackfriars  from  the  time  of  this  new  birth 
roused  a  century  of  antiquarian  interest  in  the  ancient  monastery 
to  which  it  once  belonged.  As  a  result,  its  monastic  history  has 
been  stated  again  and  again,  while  the  erroneous  notions  con- 
cerning it  as  a  theatre  permeate  the  thousands  of  critical  and 
commentarial  writings  of  the  past  hundred  years  touching  the 
Elizabethan-Jacobean  drama  and  stage.  The  truth  concerning 
Blackfriars  for  the  first  twelve  years  after  Burbage's  purchase 


date  of  the  original  document.  But 
the  date  is  referred  to  as  Novem- 
ber, 1596,  in  An  Order  for  the  sup- 
pression of  Blackfriars  theatre  by 
the  Corporation  of  the  City  of  Lon- 
don, the  original  entry  of  which  I 
have  examined  in  the  City  archives 
of  London  at  the  Guild-hall,  Rep- 
ertory 34,  fol.  38&,  under  date  "xxi° 
die  Januarij  1618"  [=1619].  Fre- 
quently printed;  e.  g.,  in  Halliwell- 
Phillips,  op.  cit.,  I,  311. 

^or  Mr.  J.  P.  Collier's  misdat- 
ing of  this  petition  as  1576  (History 
of  English  Dramatic  Poetry  and 
Annals  of  the  Stage,  18311;  18791, 
I,  218sqq.),  to  support  a  certain 
theory,  his  assuming  another  peti- 
tion in  1596  (I,  287  sqq.)  and  his 
forging  of  a  counter-petition  thereto 
concerning  Shakespeare  and  his  fel- 
low-actors (I,  288)  in  further  sup- 
port of  his  theory,  his  consequent 
placing  of  Shakespeare's  company 
and  the  children-actors  in  competi- 
tion in  the  Blackfriars  theatre  where 
they  "shared  a  divided  kingdom," — 
the  children  acting  there  in  summer 
and  the  Shakespeare  company  in 
winter  (I,  360) — ,  as  scholars  are 
still  repeating  even  in  this  present 
year;  and  for  the  long  train  of  con- 
nected   and   consequent   errors   that 


permeate  the  many  works  of  refer- 
ence, both  cyclopaedic  and  special, 
in  this  field,  occurring  in  even  some 
of  the  most  important  of  recent  lit- 
erary-historical dissertations  done 
for  the  doctorate,  see  Historical 
Preface,  vol.  I,  of  my  complete 
work. 

2  See  infra,  53,   152,  153-542,   1611. 

3  The  Italian-French  influences 
manifested  under  the  D'Avenant- 
Killigrew  theatrical  monopoly  of 
London  at  the  beginning  of  the  Res- 
toration period  were  mainly  scenic, 
operatic,  and  otherwise  spectacular 
rather  than  structural.  Agreeable 
with  this  conclusion,  reached  inde- 
pendently, see  the  latest  scientific 
research  in  the  field  of  French  in- 
fluences in  England : — L.  Charlanne, 
L'lnfluence  Franqaise  en  Angleterre 
au  xviie  Siecle,  Le  Theatre  et  la 
Critique  (These  de  l'Universite  de 
Paris,  1906),  chap.  Ill,  "L'influence 
frangaise  au  theatre,"  58-85. 

The  new  theatre-buildings  of 
D'Avenant  and  Killigrew  do  not 
seem  to  have  differed  widely  in  form 
and  main  features  from  the  Salis- 
bury Court,  the  Cockpit  (Phoenix), 
and  their  model,  the  Blackfriars. 
The  architecture  of  the  original 
"public"   theatre,  of  course, — repre- 


BLACKFRIARS  THEATRE  BUILDING  19 

of  the  building  is  interwoven  with  the  history  of  the  company 
of  boy-actors  who  held  its  boards.  Its  earlier  history  is  con- 
nected with  monastic  annals  and  the  office  of  the  Master  of  the 
Revels,  and  may  here  be  stated  briefly  as  a  necessary  preliminary.1 

The  Dominican  or  Black  Friars  in  1221  made  Holborn,  Lon- 
don, their  first  point  of  settlement  in  England.2  In  1276  they 
begged  a  new  and  larger  site.  Here  they  built  and  for  nearly 
three  centuries  maintained  the  famous  monastery  that  has  left  to 
commercialized  London  no  other  heritage  or  relic  than  such  com- 
memorative names  as  "Blackfriars  road,"  "Blackfriars  bridge," 
"Blackfriars  pier,"  "Blackfriars  school." 

The  property  lay  at  the  extreme  southwest  corner  of  the  an- 
cient City  of  London,  partly  within  the  old  Roman  wall,  but 
mainly  without.3  The  wall  then  ran  straight  on  from  Ludgate 
down  to  the  Thames.  It  crossed  the  grounds  soon  to  be  used  by 
the  Friars  for  their  fine  old  conventual  church  and  cloisters,  and 
passed  just  a  few  yards  east  of  the  site  of  the  later  Blackfriars 
theatre,  grounds  now  occupied  mainly  by  The  Times  buildings. 

Very  soon  after  acquiring  the  tract,  the  Black  Friars  through 
their  powerful  fellow,  Archbishop  Kilwardby  of  Canterbury, 
were  influential  enough  to  secure  an  order  to  tear  down  the  old 
city  wall  that  crossed  their  acquisition.     In  compensation  they 

sented  by   "The   Theatre,"   Curtain,  1846),    VIII,    1847;    William    Bray, 

Rose,    Swan,   Globe,   Fortune,   Bear  in  Archaeologia,   XVIII,  317/r*.;  T. 

Garden,  and  Hope, — perished  in  its  F.  Ordish,  in  The  Antiquary,  XIV 

own   generation   and   left    little    in-  (1886),     23;     and     item-references, 

fluence  upon  the  style  of  the  mod-  infra. 

ern    theatre-building.      For    certain  2John     Stowe,     op.     cit.     (1633), 

data,  cf.  infra,  passim.  487b,  373&. 

'For  data,  see  John  Stowe,  Sur-  "In     the     yeere     1276.       Gregory 

vey  of  London   (1603),  341sqq.;  id.  Rokefley,  Maior,  and  the  Barons  of 

(ed.  1633),  373  sqq.;  id.  (ed.  Strype,  London,  granted  and  gave  to  Rob- 

1744),  I,  667-80;  id.   (continued  by  crt   Kilwarby,   Archbifhop    of   Can- 

Edmond    Howes),    Annates,    or    A  terburie,   two   lanes   or   waves    next 

General      Chronicle      of      England  the  ftreet  of  Baynards  Caffcll.  and 

(1631)  ;  A.  J.  Kemp,  Loseley  MSS.  the  Tower  of  MountHchit,  to  be  de- 

(1835),  16,  73,  175,  186;  Appendix  stroyed.      On   the   which    place    the 

to    Seventh    Report    of    the    Royal  faid    Robert   builded    the    late    new 

Commission    on    Historical    Mann-  Church,  with  the  reft  of  the  Stones 

scripts    (1879)    under    "The    Manu-  that   were   left   of   the   faid    Tower, 

scripts  of  William  More  Molyneux,  And  thus  the  Black-Fryers  left  their 

Esq.,  of  Loseley  Park,  Guildford,  co.  Church    and    houfe    by    Oldboornc. 

Surrey."     59r>fc-681a;     Sir    William  and  departed  to  their  new." — Idem, 

Dugdale.     Monasticon    Anglicanum  487;  also  373,  with  slight  change  in 

(ed.     Caley,     Ellis,     and     Bandinel.  wording. 


20  CHILDREN  OF  THE  CHAPEL  AT  BLACKFRIARS 

built  a  new  wall  which  served  on  the  one  side  as  a  continuation 
of  the  city  wall  shutting  them  in  from  outside  danger,  and  on 
the  other  side  as  a  means  of  isolation  from  the  City  proper.  This 
new  wall  ran  westward  from  the  old  Ludgate  down  the  slope, 
approximately  along  what  is  now  Pilgrim  street,  to  a  point  a 
few  yards  south  of  Fleet  bridge, — now  the  site  of  Ludgate  cir- 
cus ; — thence  southward  along  the  Fleet  ditch, — present  New 
Bridge  street, — to  the  Thames  ;x  thence  along  the  Thames  to  the 
east  side  of  the  old  Baynard  castle  site;2  thence  with  broken  saw- 
teeth irregularity  northeastward,  enclosing  Mountfitchett's  Tower 
and  angling  up  the  Ward  Row, — later  Wardrop,  Wardrobe,  now 
St.  Andrews  Hill, — to  Carter  lane;  thence  in  an  irregular  diag- 
onal northwestward  past  the  end  of  Creed  lane  to  the  original 
starting  corner  adjoining  Ludgate.3 

This  walled  precinct  of  the  Blackfriars  was  a  sanctuary  in- 
violate, within  which  the  will  of  the  Friars  was  supreme  over 
laws  of  city  and  state.4  It  was  a  liberty  independent  of  City  and 
society  in  matters  of  control,  yet  claiming  protection  from  both, 
just  as  in  the  case  of  all  similar  religious  orders  of  the  time.  No 
one,  even  though  an  official  from  the  City,  might  enter  within  the 
four  constantly  guarded  gates  of  its  walls  without  permission. 

The  monastery  with  all  its  rights  and  possessions  was,  upon 
the  dissolution  of  the  Catholic  religious  orders  by  Henry  VIII, 
surrendered  to  the  Crown  November  12,  1538.5  Its  value  in 
yearly  income  was  then  104/.  15^.  4  c/.6 

Upon  the  dissolution  of  the  order,  the  liberties  and  privileges 
of  the  Friars  were  granted  by  Henry  VIII  also  to  the  Friars' 

1<(Now  here  is  to  bee  noted,  that  1428  by  Humphry,   Duke  of  Glou- 

the  Wall  of  London,  at  that  time,  cester,    and    shown    prominently   as 

went  ftraight  South  from  Ludgate,  "Baynards    castle"     in    all     ancient 

downe  to  the  river  of  Thames:  But  maps  after  that  date.     See  also  W. 

for   building  of   the   Blacke   Friers  J.  Loftie  (u.  i.),  80. 

Church,  the  faid  Wall  in  that  place  *On    preceding    data    as    to    site, 

was      by      commandement      taken  walls,   &c,    cf.    the   various    ancient 

downe,    and    a    new    Wall    made,  maps   of  London.     Also,   cf.  W.  J. 

ftraight    Weft    from    Ludgate    to  Loftie,    London     (Historic    Towns, 

Fleet  bridge,  and  then  by  the  water  ed.   E.    A.   Freeman  &  Wm.   Hunt, 

of  Fleet,  to  the  River  of   Thames,  1887),  76-80. 

&c."—Idem,   405.  *Cf.  infra,  211. 

2  This    is    the    original    castle    of  5John  Stowe,  op.  cit.  (1633),  374. 

Baynard  and  Fitzwalter,  which  was  "Idem,     op.     cit.      (1603),     342; 

given  to  the  Friars.     It  must  not  be  (1633),  374;    (ed.   Strype,  1744),  I, 

confounded    with    the    later,    larger  668a. 
castle  built   a   little   to   the   east   in 


BLACKFRIARS  THEATRE  BUILD [NG  21 

worldly  successors,1  and  became  from  that  time  forth  matter  for 
constant  contention  between  the  inhabitants  of  the  precinct  and 
the  Crown  on  the  one  side  and  the  persistent  City  administration 
assertive  of  authority  on  the  other  until  late  James  I.  This 
chronic  condition  shows  itself  acutely  in  the  opposing  attitudes 
of  Queen  Elizabeth  and  the  City  authorities  toward  the  establish- 
ment and  maintenance  of  Blackfriars  theatre  as  discussed  in  suc- 
ceeding chapters.1 

The  buildings  of  the  Blackfriars  precinct  were  situated  on  the 
high  embankment  north  of  the  Thames  and  east  of  the  old  Fleet 
ditch, — now  New  1 '.ridge  street.  They  included8  besides  the  little 
church  at  St.  Anne's  and  numerous  shops  and  dwellings,  the  im- 
posing conventual  church  220  feet  long  from  east  to  west  by  66 
feet  wide ;  a  churchyard  on  the  north  200  feet  by  90  feet ;  the 
cloisters  on  the  south,  comprised  in  a  square  of  no  feet;  and  to 
the  west  of  these,  the  little  chapter-house  and  the  large  Priory 
buildings,  one  of  which  standing  on  the  site  of  the  present  "Pub- 
lishing Office"  of  The  Times,  and  opening  on  a  short,  narrow, 
irregular  passage-way,  still  called  "Playhouse  Yard,"  became  the 
Blackfriars  theatre  in  1597. 

Edward  VI,  who  succeeded  to  the  throne  January  28,  1547, 
put  this  particular  building  to  a  new  use,  which  probably  deter- 
mined its  ultimate  service  to  the  drama.  Soon  after  his  accession 
he  had  all  the  apparel  and  furniture  for  the  revels  and  masks  at 
Court  removed  to  it  from  Warwick  inn.4 

Here  also  Sir  Thomas  Cawarden,  one  of  the  first  Masters  of 

the  Revels,5  had  his  office  and  rehearsed,  doubtless  in  the  great 

'The  nature  and  extent  of  these  tion  of  the  Blackfriars  and  the  lib- 
liberties   and   privileges    with    argu-  erties  granted  the  same.     Noted   in 
ments  in  their  defense  are  set  forth  Hist.  MSS.  Com.,  op.  cit..  t'.t>3&. 
in  a  lengthy  brief  and  the  testimony  aSee  infra,  .vj'-.">f.    L48-62. 
of    witnesses,    published    under    the  "For  items,  see  survey,  taken  by 
heading,    "Notes    and    Articles    for  Hugh    Losse,    the    King's    sun 
maintenance  of  the  ancient  Liberties  4  January.  3    Edward  VI.  preserved 
and  Privileges  of  the  late  diffolved  among  the  Loseley  MSS     Noted  in 
Black  Friers,  neere  Ludgate  in  Lon-  A.    J.    Kemp,    op.    cit.,    L75;    Hist, 
don,"      in     John      Stowe,     op.      cit.  MSS.  Com.,  op.  cit.,  801 
(163               80,     These   documents  'See  expense  account  forth 
gi\<-    the    inhabitants'    side    of    the  movaj  in  Kemp,  oj>.  cit.,  73, 
long   controversy.     l:<>r   the    City's  "Sir   Thomas   Cawarden   is   gen- 
side,  see  infra,  154\  L54*.    See  also,  erally  believed  to  have  been  the  first 
at  Loselej  House,  documents  (/<•»//' .  incumbent  of  the  office  of  tb 
Eliz.,  undated)  on  the  first  founda-  ter  of   the    Revels,     betters   patent 


22 


CHILDREN  OF  THE  CHAPEL  AT  BLACKFRIARS 


hall,  companies  of  actors  in  masques  and  interludes  or  plays 
chiefly  for  performances  at  Court,1  and  occasionally  also  for  sim- 
ilar diversions  at  the  houses  of  noblemen.2 

After  thus  using  the  building  for  three  years,  Edward  VI  made 
Sir  Thomas  Cawarden  a  present  of  the  entire  Blackfriars  pre- 
cinct not  already  donated  to  other  favorites, — the  two  churches, 
the  cloisters,  the  priory  houses,  shops,  residences,  and  lands, — 
by  letters  patent  dated  at  Westminster  March  12,  i549~[5o].3 
Not  long  afterwards,  the  office  of  the  Revels  and  all  the  King's 
theatrical  properties  were  removed  to  St.  John's,  Jerusalem, 
where  they  remained  until  ca.  1607.4 


of  his  appointment,  dated  March 
11,  1545-[6],  are  printed  in  extenso 
in  Thomas  Rymer,  Foedera,  XV, 
62 ;  original  at  Loseley  House,  and 
noted  in  Hist.  MSS.  Com.,  op.  cit., 
6026-603a. 

Recently  Dr.  Rudolf  Brotanek, 
Die  Englischen  Maskenspiele  {Wie- 
ner Beitr'dge  sur  Englischen  Phi- 
lologie,  ed.  Dr.  J.  Schipper,  XV), 
99,  110-11,  has  shown  that  two 
men  were  Cawarden's  predecessors, 
— Harry  Wentworth,  1510,  and  Sir 
Henry  Guildford,  1514.  Dr.  Bro- 
tanek's  source  of  information  is, 
Letters  and  Papers,  foreign  and  do- 
mestic, of  the  reign  of  Henry  VIII, 
arranged  and  catalogued  by  J.  S. 
B[rewer]  (4  vols.  1862),  II,  1492, 
I,  958,   I,  718/f. 

1See  documents  at  Loseley 
House ;  referred  to  in  Hist.  MSS. 
Com.,  op.   cit.,  602-15,  passim. 

2  Idem,  597a;  6086.  Here  for  ex- 
ample, 20  May,  1553,  the  Earl  of 
Northumberland,  presuming  upon 
the  custom,  begs  Sir  Thomas  Ca- 
warden to  prepare  or  "apoynt  out 
a  couple  of  fayre  maskes,  oon  of 
men  and  another  of  women"  for 
presentation  the  following  Thurs- 
day at  a  triple  wedding, — a  daugh- 
ter of  the  house  of  Northumberland 
with  the  Lord  of  Suffolk's  son,  an- 
other daughter  with  Lord  Hastings, 
and  one  of  the  Lord  of  Suffolk's 
daughters  with  the  Earl  of  Pem- 
broke's son. 

Also  idem,  614o.     18  July,   1558. 


Thomas  Coppley  entreats  Sir 
Thomas  Cawarden  of  his  courtesy 
to  "lend  the  vse  of  one  of"  his 
"maskes"  for  the  domestic  celebra- 
tion of  the  writer's  marriage. 

3  See  Deed  to  James  Burbage,  in 
Halliwell-Phillips,  op.  cit.,  I,  301c; 
also  Repert.  Orig.  MS.  (Brit. 
Mus.),  Ill,  1276.  See  farther  Let- 
ter-Book Z,  fol.  236  (Guildhall  Rec- 
ord Office,  City  archives  of  Lon- 
don). This  date,  in  the  document 
on  the  "Liberties"  of  Blackfriars 
published  in  Stowe,  op.  cit.  (1633), 
3766,  is  stated  thus :  "in  his  Letters 
Patents  dated  the  12.  day  of  May" 
&c.  "May"  is  certainly  error  for 
"March,"  which  is  given  in  all  the 
other  records.  The  present  docu- 
ment, for  example,  (in  Letter  Book 
Z,  fol.  236)  gives  it,  "by  his  lettres 
patentes  dated  at  Westminster  the 
xijth  of  Marche,  in  the  fourth  yeare 
of  his  Reigne."  This  valuable  his- 
torical document,  dated  January  27, 
1579,  has  never  been  printed.  See 
further,  infra,  1541. 

*See  Privy  Seal  from  James  I 
to  Edmund  Tilney,  Master  of  the 
Revels,  for  allowance  of  20  /.  yearly 
for  rent  of  "a  house  convenient  for 
the  Execution  of  the  Office  of  or 
R'evelles"  dated  "at  or  Pallace  of 
Westmr  the  eight  and  Twentith 
daie  of  December  in  the  ffifte 
yeere  of  or  Raigne"  &c.  [=  28  Dec. 
1607].  The  document  is  preserved 
in  the  Public  Record  Office  and  has 
not,  I  believe,  been  printed.     I  have 


BLACKFRIARS  THEATRE  BUILDING 


23 


Sir  Thomas  Cawarden,  the  new  possessor,  made  material 
changes  in  the  precinct.  One  of  his  first  acts  was  to  demolish 
the  noble  old  conventual  church1  as  well  as  the  little  church  of 
St.  Anne's.'-  He  seems  to  have  planned  to  make  his  acquisition 
the  residence-quarter  for  nobles  and  lords.  The  splendid  man- 
sions and  noble  society  that  we  find  there  a  little  later  show  how 
well  he  succeeded.3 

No  material  changes  were  made  in  the  Priory  House,  for  be- 
tween 1580  and  1584  we  hear  of  plays  being  acted  there.  Three 
evidences  establish  the  fact. 


made  a  transcript  of  it  and  am  pub- 
lishing it  in  extenso,  u.  i.  The  orig- 
inal may  be  consulted  in  the  bundle 
of  Privy  Seals  for  "December, 
1607." 

The  new  office-rooms,  rented 
thus  on  account  of  granting  St. 
John's  to  Lord  Aubigny,  were  in 
the  old  Whitefriars  monastery,  sep- 
arated by  only  a  wall  from  the 
Whitefriars  theatre  there,  in  which 
the  Children  of  the  King's  Revels 
held  forth.  The  removal  from  St. 
John's  and  relocation  of  the  Revels 
office  occurred,  as  this  document 
shows,  at  least  four  years  earlier 
than  hitherto  supposed.  See,  for 
example,  Peter  Cunningham,  Ex- 
tracts from  the  Accounts  of  the 
Revels  at  Court,  &c.  (Shakespeare 
Society  Publications.  1842),  xlyiii, 
where  is  made  the  statement,  hith- 
erto universally  accepted  by  schol- 
ars, that  St.  John's  was  granted  to 
Aubigny  and  the  office  of  the  Rev- 
els removed  to  St.  Peter's  Hill  in 
1611.  On  the  contrary,  the  office 
was  removed  first  to  Whitefriars, 
as  above,  in  or  before  1607,  and  to 
'tor's  Hill  later.  See  further 
under  The  Children  of  the  King's 
Revels  at  Whitefriars  in  my  forth- 
coming work  on  the  drama  and 
of  Shakespeare's  time,  vol.  I; 
also,  the  above  document  in  extenso, 
vol.  m 

'In  May.  1  '.too.  while  tearing 
down  an  old  building  on  the  north 
side  of  Ireland  Yard, — No.  7,  be- 
tween Friar  street  and  St.  Anne's 
Churchyard,  -and  excavating  for  a 
new  structure,  workmen  brought  to 


light  a  fine  old  specimen  of  Nor- 
man architecture  in  the  form  of 
walls  and  arches,  16  feet  high,  ca. 
27  feet  wide,  and  40  feet  long.  See 
description  and  colored  plate  from 
a  painting  of  the  ruins  by  Philip 
Norman,  London  Vanished  and 
Vanishing  (1905),  115-18,  with  fur- 
ther reference  to  an  earlier  article 
by  the  same  author  in  the  London 
Topographical  Society's  Annual 
Record   (1901). 

It  has  been  thought  that  these 
ruins,  now  demolished,  were  a  part 
of  the  old  Blackfriars  conventual 
church.  But  taking  the  known  di- 
mensions of  the  cemetery  90  x  200 
feet,  the  church  66  x  220  feet,  and 
the  cloisters  110  x  110  feet,  a  total 
of  266  feet  north  and  south  by  220 
feet  east  and  west,  and  measuring 
down  from  Carter  Lane  on  any 
scale  map,  it  seems  almost  beyond 
doubt  that  the  ruins  occupied  the 
site  of  one  side  of  the  ancient  clois- 
ters. The  nature  of  the  architecture 
and  the  width  of  the  ruin,  27  feet, 
divided  into  two  equal  aisles  by  a 
row  of  four  marble  pillars  support- 
ing the  stone  vaulting  of  the  roof, 
suggests  farther  that  this  is  B  ruin 
of  the  ancient  Blackfriars  cloister, 
just  south  of  which  stood  the 
theatre. 

'See  further  John  Stowe,  OP.  cit. 
I  1603),  rui -■»:>.;  id.  (ed.  L6SS), 
374&-3750. 

'Of  course  there  were  Others  also 
interested  to  the  same  end.  See, 
for  example,  documents  in  Stowe, 
op,  at.  (ed   16 


24  CHILDREN  OF  THE  CHAPEL  AT  BLACKFRIARS 

About  1 58 1  Stephen  Gossen  gives  us  to  understand  that  a  great 
many  comedies  were  being  acted  at  Blackfriars.1  In  1584  Lyly's 
Campaspe  and  his  Sapho  and  Phao  were  published.  Each  con- 
tains two  prologues, — "The  prologue  at  Blackfriars,"  and  "The 
prologue  at  Court."  There  is  no  known  documentary  declaration 
as  to  what  company  or  companies  played  at  Blackfriars  then. 
But  the  two  plays  named  were,  as  their  title-pages  show,2  pre- 
sented conjointly  by  the  Paul's  Boys  and  the  Children  of  the 
Chapel.  It  is  then  likely  that  under  their  respective  Masters  the 
same  joint  presentation  of  at  least  these  two  plays  and  possibly 
others  was  made  at  Blackfriars. 

There  are  no  further  evidences  that  the  house  in  question  was 
used  as  a  theatre  prior  to  its  purchase  and  remodeling  by  James 
Burbage,  1596-97.3 

At  some  undetermined  time  between  the  above  use  and  the 
purchase  by  James  Burbage  Feb.  4,  159 5- [6],  the  large  hall  of 
the  second  floor  was  divided  into  rooms,4  and  the  entire  building 
was  converted  into  apartments  for  residence  and  lodging.5 

The  site  of  Blackfriars  theatre  is  well  known  mainly  to  the- 
atrical histories.  In  busy  modern  London,  it  is  in  fact  quietly 
secluded  in  a  tract  that  corresponds  roughly  to  the  ancient  pos- 
sessions of  the  monastery  and  that  is  bounded  by  two  of  the 
busiest  streets  of  London  on  the  north  and  west,  near  the  lines 
of  the  ancient  wall.  If  you  are  at  St.  Paul's,  and  wish  to  reach 
the  site  of  the  Blackfriars  theatre,  go  southwestward  five  minutes 

^'But     in     Playes     either     those  "Sapho  and  Phao,  played  beefore 

thinges  are  found  that  never  were,  the    Queene's    Maiestie   on    Shrove- 

as     Cupid     and     Psyche     plaid     at  tewsday  by  her  Maiesties  Children, 

Paules ;  and  a  great  many  Coedies  and     the     Boyes     of     Paules.     Im- 

more    at   ye    Blacke    friers,    and    in  printed  at  London  by  Thomas  Cad- 

euery    Playe    house    in    London." —  man,  1584." 

Stephen  Gosson,  Plays  Confuted  in  3For    notice    of   the    Collier    for- 

Five  Actions    (ca.   1581),   reprinted  geries    and    the    consequent    errors 

in   The  English   Drama   and  Stage  still  followed  by  literary  historians, 

(ed.     Hazlitt,    Roxburghe    Library,  see  Historical  Preface  in  forthcom- 

1869),  188.  ing  complete  work. 

2 "A  most  excellent  Comedie  of  *"  .  .  .  all  those  seaven  greate 
Alexander,  Campaspe,  and  Diog-  upper  romes  as  they  are  now  de- 
enes,  played  beefore  the  Queene's  vided,  beinge  all  uppon  one  flower 
Maiestie  on  twelfe  day  at  night  by  and  sometyme  beinge  one  greate 
her  Maiesties  Children,  and  the  and  entire  rome." — Deed  to  James 
Children  of  Paules.  Imprinted  at  Burbage,  Feb.  4,  I595~i96],  in  Hal- 
London,  for  Thomas  Cadman,  liwell-Phillips,  op.  cit.,  I,  299. 
1584."      [First  edition.]                                 5See  deed,  u.  s. 


BLACKFRIARS  THEATRE  BUILDING  25 

through  narrow,  crooked  lanes  or  little  streets  or  foot-ways  down 
the  hill  to  the  elevated  railway,  thence  alongside  of  it  down  Water 
Lane  southward  to  Playhouse  Yard.  Or  if  you  are  at  Ludgate 
circus  at  the  foot  of  Fleet  street,  cross  New  Bridge  street  diag- 
onally to  the  right.  Then  at  the  right  of  the  railway  station  go 
up  Union  street,  one  street  south  of  the  line  of  the  old  north  wall 
of  the  Friars,  up  to  Water  Lane,  thence  southward  as  before. 

But  unless  your  admiration  for  things  ancient  in  city  construc- 
tion and  for  unfrequented  aimless  little  crevasselike  streets  is 
strong,  you  may  hesitate  to  venture  alone  the  whole  of  either  of 
these  shorter  general  routes. 

You  may,  however,  take  a  more  frequented  way.  Suppose  you 
come  down  Fleet  street.  When  at  the  bottom  you  reach  Ludgate 
circus,  turn  to  the  right  down  New  Bridge  street.  Then  just  be- 
fore reaching  Blackfriars  Bridge  on  the  Thames,  turn  left  into 
Queen  Victoria  street.  A  few  steps  take  you  to  Water  Lane, 
along  which  runs  the  elevated  Southeastern  and  Chatham  Rail- 
way. Go  north  on  Water  Lane  up  the  hill  seventy-five  paces, 
and  you  reach  at  your  right  "Playhouse  Yard," — the  name  given 
to  the  little  passage  in  memory  of  Blackfriars  theatre.  This  is 
not  a  "yard"  or  a  court,  but  a  narrow,  irregular  way  used  by 
foot-passengers.  With  a  width  varying  to  30  feet,  it  runs  east 
90  feet  butt  against  a  building  which  occupies  probably  the  site 
of  the  old  Pipe  Office,  adjoining  the  entrance  to  the  "Publishing 
Office"  of  The  Times, — approximately  the  place  of  the  north 
entrance  to  the  Blackfriars  theatre.  Here  the  passage  jogs  left 
into  a  wide  unsanitary  corner  pocket,  then  narrows  off  in  its 
original  direction  to  about  12  feet  for  a  distance  of  90  feet  far- 
ther, where  it  again  jogs  off  left  and  becomes  Glasshouse  Yard. — 
so  named  from  the  glass-factory  that  used  to  stand  here  near  the 
theatre.1  It  is  an  observation  made  by  foreign  visitors  to  Lon- 
don and  confirmed  by  maps  since  the  beginning  of  its  history, 
that  a  given  street  undergoes  a  change  of  name  for  every  im- 

'"I.ikc    the    Glass-house    Furnace  dwelling  adjoining   Blackfriars   the- 

in    Blacke-friers,   the   honefires   that  atre,    given    by    Sir    George    Moore 

are  kept  there   [in   Hell],  neuer  goe  to    Cuthbert   and    Richard    Rurbage 

out." — Tims.    Dekker,    Newes   from  26   June,    1601,   a    passage    or    way 

Hell   (1606),  Non-dramatic   Works  from  it  is  mentioned,  "which  lead- 

(ed.  Grosart.  Ifuth  Library),  II,  97.  eth    towards    the    glassehouse    nowe 

In    the    deed    of    a    messuage    or  in  the  tenure  of  Sir  Jerom  Bowes, 


26  CHILDREN  OF  THE  CHAPEL  AT  BLACKFRIARS 

portant  place  it  passes.  So  in  the  present  case,  this  passage  in 
turn,  a  few  steps  farther  on,  is  continued  as  Ireland  Yard,  which 
probably  was  the  north  boundary  of  the  residence  property  Shake- 
speare purchased  here  in  1613,1  and  takes  its  name  apparently 
from  William  Ireland  who  then  occupied  the  house.2 

Within  the  fifty  years  next  succeeding  Sir  Thomas  Cawarden's 
acquisition  of  the  precinct,  the  immediate  environs  of  the  Black- 
friars  theatre  site  had  become  one  of  the  most  aristocratic  resi- 
dence districts  of  London.  Henry  Carey,  Lord  Hunsdon,  Queen 
Elizabeth's  Chamberlain  of  the  Household,  had  his  mansion  here. 
His  son,  Sir  George  Carey,  who  upon  the  death  of  Sir  Henry 
succeeded  to  the  title  of  Lord  Hunsdon  and  in  the  following  year, 
1597,  became  also  Lord  Chamberlain,3  had  his  residence  adjoin- 
ing the  south  wall  of  the  theatre.  The  gate  to  his  mansion  ad- 
joined the  south  entrance  to  the  theatre,  and  both  opened  out  of 
the  same  passage-way.4  Sir  William  More  of  Loseley  owned  a 
house  on  Playhouse  Yard  (then  called  Pipe-Office  Yard),  almost 
opposite  the  north  entrance  to  the  theatre.  It  was  occupied  by 
Lord  Cobham,5  who  during  a  part  of  the  first  year  of  the  the- 
atre's history  was  Lord  Chamberlain.  Elizabeth  Dowager  Lady 
Russell  resided  near.  Queen  Elizabeth  was  frequently  enter- 
tained in  the  neighborhood  at  noble  marriages,  great  dinners, 
elaborate  masques,  &c,  particularly  at  Lord  Cobham's  and  Lord 
Hunsdon' s ;  and  at  least  once,  possibly  oftener,  at  a  play  in  Black- 
friars  theatre.6 

knight,   on   the  north   parte." — His-  Lord    Chamberlain    in    the    interval 

torical  MSS.  Com.,  op.  cit.   (1879),  until  his  death,  i.  e.,  from  Sunday, 

659.  August  8,  1596,  to  March  5,  1597. — 

1See    article    in    connection    with  See  original  entries  of  the  Clerk  in 

the    three   newly    discovered    Chan-  Registers  of  the  Privy  Council,  pre- 

cery    documents    involving    Shake-  served    at    Whitehall,    London,    ad 

speare  as  plaintiff  in  1615  concern-  loc.,   or   the    same    in    Acts   of   the 

ing  his  Blackfriars  house,  published  Privy  Council    (ed.  J.   R.   Dasent), 

in  extenso  by  me  in  The  Standard  XXV,   4;    XXVII,   50;    XXVI,   98. 

(daily),    London,    Wed.,    Oct.     18,  Cf.  also  Halliwell-Phillips,  op.  cit., 

1905,  p.  5,  col.  1-3.  I,  366c,  and  F.  G.  Fleay,  A  Chron- 

2Cf.  also  J.  O.  Halliwell-Phillips,  icle   History   of   the  London   Stage 

Outlines  of  the  Life  of  Shakespeare  (1890),  134. 

(9th  ed.  1890),  II,  246.  *Deed    to   James   Burbage,    1596, 

"Henry    Carey,    Lord    Hunsdon,  in     Halliwell-Phillips,     op.     cit.,    I, 

died  July  22,  1596.    His  son  George  300a. 

was  appointed  to  the  office  of  Lord  5Ibid.,   I,   301a. 

Chamberlain  Sunday,  April  17,  1597.  eCf.  infra,  95-97. 
William  Brooke,  Lord  Cobham,  was 


BLACKFRIARS  THEATRE  BUILDING  27 

According  to  the  Petition  of  the  inhabitants  of  Blackfriars 
precincts  in  1596,1  there  were  others  of  the  nobility  and  gentry 
in  the  neighborhood.  The  deed  of  a  dwelling-house  and  grounds 
by  Henry  Walker  to  William  Shakespeare  in  161 32  shows  that 
formerly  John  Fortescue3  had  lived  in  that  house,  and  at  present 
Henry,  Earl  of  Northumberland,  occupied  adjoining  property. 
The  prominent  families  of  the  Blackwells  and  the  Bacons  also 
resided  near.  The  Chancery  documents  concerning  Shakespeare 
and  others  in  161 5,  which  I  recently  discovered  in  the  Public 
Record  Office,4  give  the  names  of  others, — particularly  Sir 
Thomas  Bendish,  Robert  Dormer,  Edward  Newport,  and  addi- 
tional members  of  the  Blackwell  and  Bacon  families.  In  various 
other  unpublished  documents  in  the  Public  Record  Office  I  have 
met  with  the  names  of  additional  more  or  less  prominent  mem- 
bers of  the  nobility  and  gentry  of  the  time  in  connection  with 
property  transactions  in  the  Blackfriars.  Documents  published 
by  Stowe5  give  some  of  the  earliest  names,  in  Henry  VIII,  as  Sir 
John  Portenary,  Lord  Cobham,  Lord  Zanche,  Sir  Thomas  Cheney, 
Sir  William  Kingston,  Sir  Francis  Brian.  But  certain  unpub- 
lished documents  which  I  have  come  upon  in  the  Guildhall  ar- 
chives6 indicate  that  the  most  of  the  Blackfriars  inhabitants  were 
not  of  the  wealthy  class.  The  same  impression  is  given  by  sev- 
eral allusions  to  working  people  in  documents  published  bv 
Stowe,7  as  also  by  the  mention  of  the  feather-makers,  Puritans, 
&c,  of  Blackfriars  in  contemporary  dramas.  From  all  evidences 
I  conclude  that  the  aristocratic  part  was  on  the  higher  slope  of 
the  hill,  limited  practically  to  the  district  occupied  formerly  by 

xCf.  supra,  175.  duced  facsimiles  of  two  of  the  doc- 

*5ee  deed  and  mortgage  in  Hal-  uments   (Bill  and  Answer)   in  Mew 

liwell-Phillips,   op.   cit.,   II,  31-36.  Shakespeariana.    April.    1906,    front- 

3 Sir  John?  ispieces  ;  originals  in  Public  Record 

'See  the  three  documents  in  ex-  Office,     London,     under     Chancery 

tenso  with  introductory  article  pub-  Proceedings,     Bills     and     Answers, 

lished    by     me     in     The    Standard  James  /,   Bundle   B11.    X".   '.• :   and 

(daily),  London,  Oct.  18,  1905,  p.  5;  Court  of  Chancery.  Decrees  and  Or- 

type-facsimiles    of    them    with    sep-  dcrs,  vol.  1614" A,"  p.    1074. 

arate   article   in    University   of  Ne-  'John  Stowe,  op.  cit.   (ed  1633), 

braska  Studies,  October,   1905,   347-  377b. 

56;  type-facsimiles  with  brief  article  "E.  g.,  Letter  Book  Z,  fol.  23-28. 

in  EngKsche  Studien   (ed.  Johannes  TJohn  Stowe.  op.  cit.   (ed.  1633), 

Hoops,       Heidelberg)      1905-6,  375/r". 

XX XV I.  56-63;  photo-engraved  re- 


28  CHILDREN  OF  THE  CHAPEL  AT  BLACKFRIARS 

the  cloisters,  the  pretentious  Priory  buildings,  and  the  spacious 
old  conventual  church. 

In  the  midst  of  this  aristocratic  district  stood  the  Blackfriars 
theatre.  It  was  a  much  more  pretentious  structure  than  usually 
supposed.  The  fact  that  James  Burbage  in  1596  paid  600/.  for 
the  house, — about  4800  /.  in  present  values  on  a  conservative 
basis,1 — indicates  it  was  of  considerable  size.  Compare  this  price 
with  the  value  of  the  best  known  property  in  the  district,  Shake- 
speare's house.  This  was  a  dwelling  of  at  least  two  stories,  with 
several  rooms,  and  cost  only  140  /.  at  the  time  of  its  purchase  by 
the  poet  in  161 3.  The  natural  inference  follows  that  the  Priory 
House  purchased  by  Burbage  and  converted  by  him  into  the 
Blackfriars  theatre  must  have  been  four  to  five  times  as  large. 
This  inference  is  borne  out  by  the  available  data  of  certain  pub- 
lished and  unpublished2  documents.  At  the  time  of  purchase  by 
Burbage  the  building  contained  several  flats  and  lodgings.  When 
remodeled  into  the  theatre,  it  contained  one  great  hall  with  gal- 
leries and  a  stage,  and  several  smaller  rooms  adjacent  and  above 
for  specific  uses. 

A  further  notion  of  the  pretentiousness  of  the  Blackfriars 
structure  is  given  by  a  comparison  of  total  costs  of  contemporary 
theatres. 

"The  Theatre,"  built  by  James  Burbage  in  1576,  approximated 
600  /.;  and  when  in  1 598-99/  it  was  torn  down,  Gyles  Allen,  lessor 


'It  is  impossible  to  state  relative  On  comparative  values,  see  fur- 
values  exactly.  A  comparison  of  ther  Sidney  Lee,  Life  of  Shake- 
prices  then  and  now  shows  building  speare  (4th  ed.  1899)  1871,  where 
materials  about  one-tenth  to  one-  also  one-eighth  is  taken  as  the  basis, 
fifteenth  as  dear  as  today,  with  labor  But  J.  O.  Halliwell-Phillips,  op.  cit., 
and  most  necessities  of  life  approx-  I,  21,  says,  "In  balancing  Shake- 
imately  of  the  same  relative  cheap-  spearean  and  present  currencies,  the 
ness.  As  to  real  estate,  values  of  former  may  be  roughly  estimated 
not  only  this  same  property  (now  from  a  twelfth  to  a  twentieth  of  the 
owned  by  The  Times)  but  of  prop-  latter  in  money,  and  from  a  twen- 
erty  throughout  London  have  so  in-  tieth  to  a  thirtieth  in  landed  or 
creased  that  a  comparison  on  that  house  property." 
basis  would  make  the  price  paid  by  2See  infra,  364,  39\ 
Burbage  seem  fabulous.  The  esti-  3The  process  of  demolition  began 
mate  I  have  here  allowed  of  one-  Dec.  28,  1598,  and  seems  to  have 
eighth  is  probably  too  conservative,  been  completed  in  January,  1599. 
but  even  on  that  basis  shows  the  See  extracts  from  suits  at  law  in 
property  highly  valuable.  Halliwell-Phillips,  op.  cit.,  I,  360-61. 


BLACKFRIARS  THEATRE  BUILDING 


29 


of  the  land  on  which  it  had  stood,  wishing  in  a  suit  at  law  to 
secure  damages,  placed  upon  it  the  high  value  of  700  I.1 

The  cost  of  the  Globe,  constructed  in  1599  partly  from  the  old 
materials  of  the  torn-down  "Theatre,"  cannot  have  reached  near 
600  I.2 

The  Fortune,  erected  the  next  year  (1600)  on  the  general  plan 
of  the  Globe,  was  contracted  for,  to  be  built  wholly  out  of  new 
materials,  at  440  /.3  But  the  building  when  completed  exceeded 
the  contract-price,  amounting  to  520  /.4  The  lease  of  the  grounds 
cost  240  /.  Hence  the  total  cost  of  the  Fortune  theatre  and 
grounds  was  760  I.5 


1See  data  from  suits  in  Halli- 
well-Phillips,  op.  cit.,  I,  371c. 

*Cf.  infra,  29*. 

'See  contract  of  Henslowe  and 
Alleyn,  owners,  with  Peter  Street, 
carpenter.  Original  in  Dulwich 
College  Library,  in  the  suburbs  of 
London.  Printed  in  E.  Malone, 
Shakespeare  Variorum  (ed.  Bos- 
well,  1821),  III,  338-43;  J.  O.  Hal- 
liwell-Phillips,  op.  cit.,  I,  304-6; 
G.  P.  Baker,  The  Development  of 
Shakespeare  as  a  Dramatist  (1907), 
315-20   (from  Malone,  u.  s.). 

*  Peter  Street  was  the  builder  of 
both  the  Globe  («.  s.)  and  the  For- 
tune. His  contract  of  440  /.  to  build 
the  Fortune  after  the  general  plan 
of  the  Globe  is  based  upon  his  ex- 
perience in  erecting  the  Globe.  That 
amount  rather  than  the  520  /.,  then, 
gives  his  approximate  estimate  of 
the  cost  of  the  Globe  if  it  had  been 
built  not  of  old,  but  wholly  of  new 
material.  Upon  this  basis  the  Globe, 
built  partly  of  materials  from  "The 
Theatre,"  cannot  have  cost  so  much 
as  440  /.  in  actual  cash  outlay  in 
1599. 

"Data  from  Edward  Alleyn's 
memorandum  of  "What  the  Fortune 
cost  me  Novemb.,  1599,"  printed 
from  the  original  MS.  at  Dulwich 
Collect'  in  The  Alleyn  Papers  (ed. 
J.  P.  Collier,  Shakes.  Soc.  Pub. 
L848),  mv.  Also  in  J.  P.  Collier, 
History  of  English  Dramatic  Poetry 
(1879J).  III.  L19.  [Rut  there  is  an 
error   by   some   one.     The   contract 


for  the  Fortune  (w.  s.,  29s)  is  dated 
"the  eighte  daie  of  Januarye,  1599- 
[1600],  and  in  the  twoe  and  fortyth 
yeare  of  the  reigne  of  our  sov- 
ereigne  ladie  Elizabeth."  At  this 
period  the  calendar  year  ended 
March  24.  Has  Alleyn  in  his  Pock- 
et-book note  above,  "Novemb., 
1599,"  forgot  to  change  the  year 
after  passing  March  24?  It  should 
of  course  be  "1600."  For  similar 
errors,  see  Henslowe's  Diary  (ed. 
Collier,  5".  S.  Pub.,  1845),  29,  47, 
99,   102,  et  passim]. 

Sometimes  the  cost  of  the  For- 
tune is  stated  as  880  /.  But  that 
includes  private  buildings  that  Al- 
leyn placed  on  the  same  grounds. 
Sometimes  the  amount  is  given  as 
1320/.  But  that  includes  not  only 
these  private  buildings,  but  addi- 
tional houses  and  leases  in  Golding 
Lane  purchased  by  Alleyn,  the  ex- 
pense of  all  being  itemized  and 
summed  up  in  the  same  account 
(  m.  s.).  Collier  (Memoirs  of  Ed- 
ward Alleyn,  S.  S.  Pub.  1841,  59), 
upon  reconsideration  after  the  first 
edition  of  his  History  (1S31),  de- 
cides that  the  520  /.  was  only  Al- 
leyn's half  of  the  expense.  But  his 
assumption  that  Henslowe  paid  an 
equal  amount  is  gratuitous  and  is 
supported  by  no  document.  On  the 
contrary  all  the  known  <Jij/<j  accord 
with  760  /.  as  the  total  cost  of  the 
Fortune  theatre  and  lease  of 
grounds. 


30  CHILDREN  OF  THE  CHAPEL  AT  BLACKFRIARS 

The  cost  of  the  Curtain  and  "the  little  Rose"1  is  unknown,  but 
cannot  have  equaled  that  of  the  Fortune  or  the  Globe. 

The  outlay  for  the  Bear  Garden  and  especially  for  the  Swan 
can  be  approximated  through  our  knowledge  of  the  Hope.  In 
1613,  the  Bear  Garden  was  torn  down  and  the  Hope  built  in  its 
place  on  the  model  of  the  Swan  in  every  detail.2  The  old  mate- 
rials of  the  Bear  Garden  and  of  another  old  house  were  to  be 
used  in  building  the  Hope,3  and  an  adjoining  two-story  "bull 
house  or  stable"  large  enough  to  accommodate  six  bulls  and  three 
horses.  Besides  this  old  lumber,  the  cost  in  cash  for  labor  and 
new  materials  was  agreed  upon  as  360  I.  It  is  liberal  in  any  case 
to  estimate  the  materials  at  half  the  total  cost  of  the  finished 
structure.  But  in  this  case  the  360  I.  includes  part  of  the  mate- 
rials,— all  the  new.  It  includes  also  the  labor  on  the  "bull  house 
or  stable."  It  would  on  this  basis  seem  generous  to  estimate  the 
cost  of  the  Hope  theatre  exclusive  of  grounds  at  500  I.  In  no 
respect  does  it  seem  to  have  equaled  the  Fortune  building,  which 
cost  520  /. 

The  Bear  Garden,  then,  at  the  time  of  pulling  down,  and  most 
likely  at  first  cost,  was  worth  less  than  the  new  building  of  the 
Hope  that  displaced  it. 

As  to  the  Swan,  it  is  fair  to  conclude  that  that  theatre  was  not 
more  pretentious  in  form  nor  worth  than  the  Hope,  for  which  it 
served  as  model.  But  according  to  a  contemporary  Dutch  priest 
of  St.  Mary's,  Utrecht,  Johannes  De  Witt,  who  stands  absolutely 
alone  in  his  testimony,  the  Swan  was  a  magnificent  theatre,  "con- 
structum  ex  coaceruato  lapide  pyrritide,"4  and  large  enough  to 

1The  Rose  may  have  been  worth  ing  the  Hope.  Printed  in  E.  Ma- 
more  than  half  as  much  as  the  lone,  Shakespeare  Variorum  (ed. 
Blackfriars.  The  rental  value  Boswell,  1821),  III,  343-47;  re- 
placed upon  the  Rose  in  1603  by  a  printed  therefrom  in  G.  P.  Baker, 
prospective  tenant  was  20/.,  just  The  Development  of  Shakespeare  as 
half  the  yearly  rent  of  the  Black-  a  Dramatist  (1907),  320-25. 
friars.  But  Henslowe  thought  his  3The  Hope  was  used  for  bull- 
"little  Rose"'  worth  more  than  20  I.,  baiting  and  bear-baiting  two  days 
and  declared  he  would  pull  it  down  in  the  week,  and  for  plays  four 
rather  than  accept  that  amount. —  days.  Cf.  contract  u.  s.;  also  cf. 
Cf.  Henslowe's  Diary  (ed.  Collier,  infra,  33s. 
5\  S.  Pub.,  1845),  235-36.  translated      as      "flint,"      "flint 

2  See   contract  by   Henslowe   and  stone,"  "concrete  of  flint  stone,"  &c. 

Meade  with  Gilbert  Katherens,  car-  But  the  translation  or  the  meaning 

penter,  29  August,  1613,  for  build-  makes    little    difference,    since    the 


BLACKFRIARS  THEATRE  BUILDING 


31 


accommodate  three  thousand  spectators.1  Also  the  painted  pil- 
lars were  to  him  so  good  an  imitation  of  marble  as  to  deceive  the 
sharpest  eye.2 

All  this  would  argue  great  cost  in  building.  But  De  Witt's 
statements  are  unfortunate  in  not  being  wholly  true.  The  Swan 
was  built  of  wood,3  and  was  later  (1613)  duplicated  in  every 
particular  by  the  Hope,  the  contract  for  which  has  come  down  to 
us.4  The  inner  walls  were  plastered.  The  outer  walls  too  were 
plastered  or  roughly  stuccoed  or  "cemented"  but  not  in  such  man- 
ner as  to  leave  the  heavy  cross-timbers  of  the  framework  artis- 
tically exposed,5  as  has  been  surmised.6     The  plaster  or  cement 


statement  is  not  true.  The  Swan 
was  built  of  wood.  See  infra,  31s- 
31*. 

lCf.  infra,  501. 

2  For  De  Witt's  full  description 
and  a  very  free-hand  sketch  of  the 
Swan  therefrom  by  Van  Buchell, 
generously  reproduced  in  most  of 
the  later  works  on  the  English 
drama  and  stage,  see  Dr.  K.  Th. 
Gaedertz,  Zur  Kenntnis  der  Alt- 
englischcn  Biihne  (1888),  where  De 
Witt's  Latin  document  and  the 
Swan  sketch,  both  done  from  pleas- 
ing recollection,  were  first  pub- 
lished. Original  MS.  and  drawing 
in  the  Utrecht  library,  where  Dr. 
Gaedertz  discovered  them. 

*Paul  Hentzner,  a  German  so- 
journer in  England  in  1598,  not 
more  than  two  years  after  De 
Witt's  visit,  declares  in  his  ex- 
haustively minute  and  generally 
veritable  observations  on  London 
that  the  [public]  theatres  of  that 
period  were  "all  built  of  wood." 
The  contract  for  the  Hope,  modeled 
on  the  Swan,  specified  wood  for  the 
entire  frame-work,  and  indicates 
r  for  finishing.  Cf.  infra,  321. 
contract,  u.  s.,  302.  So  nearly 
is  the  11  "pe  to  be  like  the  Swan  that 
Henslowe  and  Meade  have  not  felt 
it  necessary  to  make  specifications 
in  detail,  even  of  the  size.  Gilbert 
Katherens,  the  carpenter,  is  to  find 
nut  all  such  details  from  the  Swan, 
—"And  to  builde  the  same  of  suche 
large    compasse,     forme,     wideness, 


and  height,  as  the  plaie  house  called 
the  Swan  in  the  libertie  of  Paris 
Garden  in  the  saide  parishe  of  St. 
Saviours  now  is."  Furthermore, 
"And  the  saide  playe  house  or  game 
place  to  be  made  in  all  thinges  and 
in  suche  forme  and  fashion  as  the 
said  playhouse  called  the  Swan." 

5  A  style  of  construction  still  pre- 
served in  occasional  old  buildings 
of  London,  as  inns, — e.  g.,  in  Hol- 
born  street, — in  Stratford-on-Avon, 
Shrewsbury,  Chester,  and  most 
other  old  towns  of  England.  Also 
seen  in  especially  good  examples  in 
ancient  bauer  or  peasant  houses  and 
inns  of  southern  Germany.  A  style 
imitated  on  more  conventional  lines 
quite  widely  this  present  year  in 
American  residence  buildings  in 
outward  effect,  but  not  in  real  con- 
struction. Although  numerous 
buildings  contemporary  with  the 
early  theatre  show  in  the  engrav- 
ings this  style  of  architecture,  none 
of  the  many  pictures  of  early  the- 
atres do.  For  a  convenient  collec- 
tion showing  both,  see  Sir  Walter 
Besant,  London  in  the  Time  of  the 
Tudors  (1004),  passim,  or  Halli- 
well-Phillips,  of>.  cit.,  passim.  For 
later  views,  cf.  Philip  Norman, 
London  Vanished  and  Vanishing 
(  L905.  llluv  with  75  colored  plates 
from  paintings  by  the  author). 

"So  at  least  I  understand  Prof. 
G.  P.  Baker,  op.  cit..  T.'i.  in  the  ex- 
pression "a  cross-timbered  con- 
struction." 


CHILDREN  OF  THE  CHAPEL  AT  BLACKFRIARS 


covered  the  entire  exterior,1  and  was  probably  marked  off  so  as 
to  give  the  appearance  of  stone  blocks,2  or  otherwise  ornamented. 
Also  the  pillars  "uppon  and  over  the  stage"  of  the  Hope,  like 
those  of  the  Swan,  were  simply  "turned  cullumes  [columns],"3 
a  very  plain  adornment  at  best,  while  the  posts  supporting  the 
balconies  were  made  of  square  dimension  stuff  measuring  from 
ten  by  ten  in  the  lower  story  to  six  by  six  in  the  upper.     And 


^he  Fortune  was  plastered  thus 
outside,  as  shown  by  the  contract 
for  its  construction  (u.  s.,  293)  thus : 
"And  alsoe  all  the  saide  frame  and 
the  [outside]  stearcases  thereof  to 
be  sufficyently  enclosed  without  with 
lathe,  lyme,  and  haire."  The  Globe 
as  the  specified  model  of  the  For- 
tune must  then  have  been  built  in 
the  same  manner.  The  general 
specifications  in  the  Hope  contract 
(m.  s.,  314)  calling  for  the  use  of 
"lyme  lears  [=  hears],  sand,  brickes, 
tyles,  laths,  nayles,"  &c,  the  whole 
building  "to  be  made  in  suche  forme 
and  fashion  as  the  said  playhouse 
called  the  Swan,"  indicate  the  same 
style  of  plaster  exterior  for  both 
as  for  the  Fortune  and  Globe.  Cor- 
roborative of  this  evidence  is  the 
engraving  of  the  Hope  ("Bear  Gar- 
den") in  R.  Wilkinson,  Londina  Il- 
lustrate (1819),  I,  pt.  ii  (no  pag.), 
which  shows  a  plaster  exterior 
marked  off  into  large  stone-shaped 
blocks.  Although  Visscher's  view 
of  1616  was  used  as  a  basis  for  this 
engraving,  it  is  fair  to  presume  the 
engraver  had  more  tangible  evidence 
than  mere  imagination  upon  which 
to  represent  such  an  exterior.  Par- 
ticularly so  since  it  is  not  contra- 
dictory but  corroborative  of  the 
other  evidences,  and  is  itself  cor- 
roborated by  common  custom  of  the 
times  represented. 

From  the  amount  of  lime,  sand, 
lath,  lath-nails,  &c.  used  by  Hens- 
lowe  "a  bowte  my  play  howsse" 
(probably  the  Rose)  in  1592,  this 
theatre  also  had  a  similar  exterior. 
(See  items  in  Henslowe's  Diary,  ed. 
Collier,  5".  5".  Pub.,  1845,  10-15.) 

In  all  these  known  cases  of  the 
Fortune  (and  Globe),  the  Hope 
(and  Swan),  as  also  in  case  of  the 


addition  to  the  Bear  Garden  in  1606 
(cf.  contract  in  Memoirs  of  Edward 
Alleyn,  ed.  Collier,  S.  S.  Pub.,  1841, 
78-81),  the  heavy-timbered  "frame" 
is  mentioned  and  emphasized  as  the 
main  thing  in  the  structure.  The 
plastering  over  heavy  laths  or 
"slates"  was  of  course  regarded  as 
part  of  the  "finishing." 

There  seems  little  room  for 
doubt  that  the  same  sort  of  heavy- 
timbered  "frame"  and  plaster  ex- 
terior characterized  the  Globe,  the 
Fortune,  the  Bear  Garden,  the 
Swan,  the  Hope,  and  the  Rose,  and 
probably  all  other  public  theatres 
prior  to  the  building  of  the  new 
Globe  and  Fortune.  (Cf.  infra, 
34T.) 

There  was  good  reason  why  all 
the  Elizabethan  and  early  Jacobean 
public  theatres  should  avail  them- 
selves of  this  same  general  plan  of 
unpretentious  and  comparatively  in- 
expensive efficiency.  In  this  they 
were  using  the  mode  of  building 
that  was  most  in  vogue  for  common 
houses,  inns,  and  other  structures 
not  intended  for  the  centuries, — a 
mode,  so  far  as  the  plaster  exterior 
is  concerned,  still  used  widely  in 
southern  Europe  and  parts  of  Amer- 
ica, though  not  always  for  cheap- 
ness. The  theatre  was  more  or  less 
an  uncertain  business  enterprise, 
usually  located  on  temporarily 
leased  grounds,  and  did  not  war- 
rant the  anticipations  of  the  future 
in  either  the  expense  or  permanence 
that  the  use  of  brick  or  stone, — 
much  less  of  flint  stone, — would 
carry  with  it. 

aSee  the  Wilkinson  engraving  of 
the  Hope  (Bear  Garden),  u.  s.,  321. 

*Cf.  contract  for  Hope,  u.  s.,  301. 


BLACKFRIARS  THEATRE  BUILDING 


33 


neither  the  Swan  nor  the  Hope  could  on  an  architect's  estimate 
accommodate  more  than  one-third  the  number  De  Witt  guessed.1 
The  removable  stage  of  each  rested  on  "tressels"2  and  could  be 
taken  up  for  bull-baiting  or  bear-baiting,  and  put  down  again  for 
play-acting/1 — an  impermanency  and  practice  that  further  sug- 
gests less  of  fixed  excellence  in  structure  and  adornment  than 
De  Witt  gave  compliment  to.4 

There  is  no  evidence  of  a  pretentiousness  of  either  the  Swan 
or  the  Hope,  built  and  used  thus  alike,  that  warrants  a  more  gen- 
erous valuation  than  the  liberal  500  I.  as  already  calculated,  or  a 
larger  estimate  of  their  capacity  than  that  of  the  Fortune  or  the 
Globe.  Rather  do  these  estimates  of  value  and  size  seem  too  large 
than  too  small. 

In  the  same  year  the  Hope  was  built,  the  original  Globe  was 


'On  comparative  capacities,  see 
infra,  501. 

*Cf.  Hope  contract,  u.  s.,  30*. 
The  De  Witt-Van  Buchell  sketch  of 
the  Swan,  which  is  merely  suggest- 
ive,— in  the  main  rightly  but  some- 
times wrongly  suggestive, — and  in 
no  detail  exact  nor  intended  to  be 
exact,  shows  a  temporary  prosce- 
nium ; — which  however  most  prob- 
ably extended  much  farther  back 
than  there  shown,  with  the  posts 
also  moved  far  rearwards,  leaving 
the  "heavens"  unsupported  and  pro- 
jecting forward  over  the  temporary 
stage,  as  specified  in  the  Hope  con- 
tract. 

"'The  Hope  on  the  Banks  side 
in  Southwarke,  commonly  called  the 
Beare  Garden,  A  Play  house  for 
Stage  Playes  on  Mundayes,  Wed- 
ensdayes,  Fridayes  and  Saterdayes, 
And  for  the  Baiting  of  the  Beares 
On  Tuesdayes  and  Thursdayes,  the 
being  made  to  take  vp  and 
downe  when  they  please." — MS. 
notes  in  a  copy  of  Stowe's  Annates 
or  Chronicle  (continued  by  E. 
>.  1631,  in  die  Phillips  col- 
lection, Thirlestone  Mouse,  Chelten- 
ham; reported  by  Dr.  F.  J.  Furni- 
vall.  "The  End  of  Shakspere's 
Playhouses,"      in      The     Academy 


(1882),   XXII,   314-15. 

*When    one    considers    De  Witt's 

description  and  sketch  of  the  Swan, 
one  is  divided  between  gratitude  for 
certain  data  and  the  suggestive  il- 
lumination of  our  knowledge  on  the 
one  hand,  and  admiration  on  the 
other  for  the  exhilarating  quality 
of  dramatic  ale  that  made  the  dis- 
tinguished Dutch  scholar  and  priest 
see  the  rather  plain,  moderate-sized 
plastered  wooden  bear-baiting  and 
bull-baiting  playhouse  with  gener- 
ous vision,  even  in  pleasing  retro- 
spect. 

Ben  Jonson  in  closing  The  In- 
duction to  his  Bartholomcio  Fair, 
under  date  30  Oct.,  1614,  the  first 
play  ever  presented  at  the  Hope, 
damned  that  bull-baiting  theatre  as 
not  merely  unaesthetic,  but  as  "be- 
ing as  durty  as  Smithfield,  and  as 
ftinking  euery  whit."  [The  slush 
and  filth  of  the  cattle-market  of  the 
Bartholomew  fair,  held  every  Au- 
gust at  Smithfield,  was  proverbial. 1 
With  the  breath  of  this  judgment 
blown  suggestively  across  from  the 
Hope  to  its  model  in  structure  and 
use,  the  Swan,  it  would  seem  thai 
De  Witt  at  a  distance  with  his  Latin 
prose  was  more  poet  than  Jonson 
present   with  his   English  verse. 


34 


CHILDREN  OF  THE  CHAPEL  AT  BLACKFRIARS 


burned  down1  and  the  new  Globe  erected"  by  the  shareholders3 
in  its  place  at  a  cost  of  1400 /.*  Although  begun  in  1613  it  was 
not  completed  until  the  spring  of  1614,5  nearly  a  year  after  the 
fire.6  The  reason  for  the  extraordinary  expense  and  the  longer 
time  required  for  construction  was  that  the  building  was  erected 
much  more  substantially7  and  fitted  out  in  a  manner  superior  to  all 


"Burned  29  June,  1613.  For  de- 
tails, see  a  letter  from  John  Cham- 
berlain, 8  July,  1613,  in  Malone,  op. 
cit.,  69;  Sir  Henry  Wotton,  Rel- 
iquae  Wottoniae  (1685),  425;  John 
Stowe  (continued  by  E.  Howes), 
Annales  or  a  General  Chronicle 
(1631),  1004;  "A  Sonnet  on  the  pit- 
iful Burning  of  the  Globe  Playhouse 
in  London,"  in  J.  P.  Collier,  His- 
tory of  English  Dramatic  Poetry 
and  the  Stage  (1831),  I,  387; 
printed  also  from  another  MS.  in 
Halliwell-Phillips,  op.  cit.,  I,  310-11. 
The  least  known  but  one  of  the 
most  nearly  contemporary  of  these 
accounts  is  a  letter  from  Rev. 
Thomas  Lorkin  to  Sir  Thomas 
Puckering  the  next  day  after  the 
fire,  30  June,  1613,  in  [Thomas 
Birch],  The  Court  and  Times  of 
James  I   (1848),   I,  253. 

2  For  the  statement  in  an  early 
record,  but  on  an  unknown  basis, 
that  the  Globe  was  "now  built  vp 
again  in  the  yeare  1613  at  the  great 
charge  of  King  lames,  and  many 
Noble  men  and  others,"  see  The 
Academy,  loc.  cit. 

"For  a  list  of  the  shareholders 
and  their  shares  at  this  time, — and 
from  the  beginning  of  the  Globe, — 
see  the  long  and  valuable  documents 
on  Shakespeare,  and  the  Globe  and 
Blackfriars  theatres,  which  I  dis- 
covered some  time  ago  and  shall  as 
soon  as  possible  make  known  in  a 
separate  publication. 

4  See  Answer  of  John  Shanks  in 
the  Globe-Blackfriars  Share-papers 
of  1635,  in  Halliwell-Phillips,  op. 
cit.,  I,   316a. 

5"  .  .  .  And  the  next  spring 
T1614]  it  was  builded  in  farre  fairer 
maner  then  before." — John  Stowe 
(continued  by  E.  Howes),  Annales 
or  a  General  Chronicle  (1631),  1004. 


The  MS.  notes  in  the  copy  of  this 
edition  at  Thirlestone  House  (w.  s., 
333)  declare  that  the  Globe  was 
burnt  down  in  1612  and  rebuilt  in 
1613.  But  those  notes  are  inaccu- 
rate in  dates  and  data,  and  can  be 
accepted  only  when  confirmatory  of 
other  evidence. 

6  It  had  but  recently  been  opened 
when  Chamberlain  wrote  Mrs. 
Carleton  (u.  i.,  351),  just  a  year 
and  a  day  after  the  fire. 

7  The  new  Globe  required  nearly 
two  to  four  times  as  long  in  con- 
struction as  any  former  public  the- 
atre,— the  Fortune  contract  (u.  s., 
290  calling  for  six  and  one-half 
months  and  the  Hope  three  months. 
It  cost  nearly  three  times  as  much 
as  any  of  them.  These  items  indi- 
cate a  better  sort  of  material  or  bet- 
ter workmanship  or  both. 

The  Fortune  theatre,  the  sharp 
rival  of  the  Globe,  was,  after  the 
1621  fire,  rebuilt  with  a  brick  veneer 
(cf.  The  Academy,  u.  s.,  "And  built 
againe  with  brick  worke  on  the  out- 
side in  ye  yeare  1622"),  possibly  in 
continuation  of  the  long  emulation. 

An  official  return,  1634  (W. 
Rendle,  New  Shak.  Soc.  Pub.,  1878, 
App.  I,  xvii),  declares  "The  Globe 
playhouse  nere  Maide  lane  built  by 
the  Company  of  Players  with  tim- 
ber about  20  yeares  past  uppon  an 
old  foundacion."  This  seems  to 
preclude  any  notion  of  brick-work 
in  the  Globe  above  the  foundation. 
But  Wilkinson,  who  published,  1819 
(op.  cit.),  the  famous  view  of  the 
plastered  brick-veneered  facade  of 
the  second  Fortune  (Shepherd  del., 
1811,  Wise  sculp.),  then  still  stand- 
ing, engraved  also  in  the  same 
work,  from  Visscher,  a  view  of  the 
new  Globe,  showing  brick-work  in 
the  key-stone  arches  over  the  win- 


BLACKFRIARS  THEATRE  BUILDING  86 

former  public  theatres.1  The  managers  seem  to  have  taken  some- 
what into  account  the  demands  of  the  better  class  of  society  that 
in  late  Elizabeth  had  abandoned  the  public  theatres  and  followed 
after  royalty  in  the  enjoyment  of  superior  accommodations  and 
aristocratic  exclusiveness  at  the   Blackfriars. - 

The  Blackfriars  Priory  House  cost  Burbage  at  purchase  600/. 
The  extensive  remodeling8  necessary  to  convert  the  building  into 
a  theatre  cannot,  upon  conservative  estimates,  have  cost  less  than 
200/.,  and  most  likely  exceeded  that  amount. 

The  completed  Blackfriars,  then,  had  in  1597  a  cash  value  of 
at  least  800  /. 

Upon  all  known  evidences,  some  of  which  have  been  adduced 
in  this  comparative  view  of  the  theatres,  the  Blackfriars,  then,  at 
a  value  of  800/.,  was  the  most  expensive  theatre  building  ever 
established  in  London  prior  to  the  new  Globe  in  1614. 

Still  a  further  comparison  is  serviceable. 

Since  the  publication  of  Wright's  Historia  Histrionica*  all  pri- 
vate theatres  have  been  generally  classed  together  under  the  word 
"small,"  giving  rise  to  absurdly  false  notions.  The  Blackfriars 
was  large  enough  for  the  Burbage-Shakespeare  company  to  take 
it  for  their  own  use  after  the  termination  of  the  Children  of  the 
Queen's  Revels  there  in  1608.5  Here  they  were  able  to  assemble 
such  audiences  as  to  enable  the  company  to  get  more  by  1000  /. 
for  their  Blackfriars  performances  in  a  single  winter  than  thev 
were  used  to  get  at  the  Globe.0    This  was  due  mainly  of  course 

dows,   like  those  of  the  upper   win-  speech  of  this  new  playhouse,  which 

(lows   of  the  Fortune   fagade.  is   said   to   be   the    fairest   that   ever 

An  original  drawing  of  the  Globe  was  in  England." — John  Chamber- 
in  the  Trace  collection  (Brit.  Mus.,  lain.  Esq.,  to  Mrs.  Alice  Carleton, 
Pennant's  London)  the  antiquity  of  no  June.  10]  I.  in  [Thomas  Birch], 
which  is  forged,  likewise  shows  the  The  Court  and  Times  of  James  I 
arches  of  brick.  On  the  whole  it  (1S4S),  I.  329.  Cf.  also  supra 
seems  questionable  hut  not  unlikely  'Cf.  infra.  51,  95-97,  I05ff.,  126- 
thal  the  timber  framework  was  29,  L48  62,  I73ff. 
brick-veneered   and   plastered   over,          3Cf.  inf. 

after  the  old  and  still  present  cus-  "James  Wright,   infra,  36*    43*. 

torn,  as  in  the  cas,-  of  the  Fortune.  "See     under     "Children     of     the 

'"I  have  n"t  seen  your  sister  Queen's  R  vels  at  Blackfriars"  in 
Williams  since  T  came  to  town.  forthcoming  work.  vol.  I. 
though  I  have  been  there  twice.  '"This  replyant  [Kirkham]  sayth, 
The  first  time  she  was  at  a  neigh-  and  the  same  will  averr  and  proue 
Dor's  house  at  cards,  and  the  next  to  this  honorable  Courte,  thai  dur- 
shc  wis  gone  to  the  New  Globe,  inge  such  time  as  the  said  defend- 
to    a    play.      Indeed.     I    hear    much  ants     Flemings     and     Burbidge    and 


36 


CHILDREN  OF  THE  CHAPEL  AT  BLACKFRIARS 


not  to  greater  size  of  auditorium,  but  to  superior  accommodations 
and  higher  prices  in  entertaining  a  more  select  and  exclusive  set 
of  patrons.  The  Blackfriars  as  we  shall  see  was  not  so  large  as 
the  Globe,  though  of  greater  size  than  seems  generally  believed. 
It  was  the  standard  for  Whitefriars  (ca.  1604), x  and  the  model 
in  form  and  size  for  the  Cockpit  (ca.  — ?;  rebuilt  as  Phoenix, 
1617),  and  for  Salisbury  Court  theatre  (1629).2 

The  above  comparisons  give  us  general  conceptions.  Materials 
at  hand  enable  us  to  determine  with  some  definiteness  the  size  of 
the  Blackfriars  building  and.  essential  features  of  its  exterior  at 
the  date  of  purchase,  as  also  the  interior  arrangement  of  rooms, 
the  extent  of  alterations  made  by  the  Burbages,  the  exact  square 
dimensions  of  the  "Great  Hall"  used  as  the  theatrical  auditorium, 
the  location  of  the  stage,  and  the  general  features  of  arrangement 
of  both  auditorium  and  stage.  The  evidences  are  in  the  Deed  to 
Burbage,3  the  numerous  suits  at  law  by  Henry  Evans,  Edward 
Kirkham,  and  their  associates  against  each  other,4  Clifton's  com- 
plaint in  the  Court  of  Star  Chamber  against  Evans  et  al.,5  docu- 
ments concerning  Salisbury  Court  theatre,6  and  contemporary 
plays. 


theire  Companye  contynewed  playes 
and  Interludes  in  the  said  great 
Hall  in  the  ffryers,  that  they  gott 
&  as  yet  dothe,  more  in  one  Winter 
in  the  said  great  Hall  by  a  thou- 
sand powndes  then  they  were  vsed 
to  gett  in  the  Banckside." — Kirk- 
ham's  Replication  in  Kirkham  vs. 
Evans  et  al.,  Court  of  Chancery, 
1612,  Public  Record  Office.  Printed 
from  the  transcript  of  James  Green- 
street,  the  discoverer,  in  F.  G.  Fleay, 
A  Chronicle  History  of  the  London 
Stage   (1890),  248. 

'See  "Children  of  the  King's 
Revels  at  Whitefriars,"  in  forth- 
coming work,  vol.  I. 

2  "They  [Blackfriars,  Cockpit, 
and  Salisbury  Court]  were  all  three 
built  almost  exactly  alike  for  form 
and  bigness." — James  Wright,  His- 
toria  Histrionica  (1699),  in  Haz- 
litt's  Dodsley,  Old  Plays  (1876), 
XV,  408.  [But  Wright  is  not  quite 
exact  here.     See  infra,  393]. 


"Printed  in  Halliwell-Phillips,  op. 
cit.,  I,  299-301. 

4  These  suits  take  rank  among  the 
chief  records  of  the  Elizabethan- 
Jacobean  stage.  Two  of  them,  con- 
taining eleven  documents,  were  dis- 
covered by  the  late  Mr.  James 
Greenstreet,  and  printed  in  extenso 
in  F.  G.  Fleay,  op.  cit.,  210-51. 
[Later  references,   "G-F."] 

Twelve  additional  suits — contain- 
ing bills,  pleas,  answers,  replica- 
tions, depositions,  bonds,  and  articles 
of  agreement — belong  among  the 
treasures  of  my  own  researches,  and 
will  appear  in  extenso  in  my  forth- 
coming work,  vol.  III.  Occasional 
quotations  are  made  from  them  in 
the  present  work. 

5Greenstreet's  transcript  in  Fleay, 
op.  cit.,  127-32.  [Referred  to  here- 
after as  "G.-F."] 

8  Published  by  Peter  Cunningham 
in  The  Shakespeare  Society's  Papers 
(1849),  IV,  91-108. 


BLACKFRIARS  THEATRE  BUILDING  37 

The  Blackfriars  building  was  a  stone1  structure  erected  in  two 
sections.  The  north  section  adjoining  the  Pipe  Office, — a  gov- 
ernment repository  where  great  drainpipe-like  rolls  of  state  parch- 
ments were  kept, — was  three  stories  high,  with  garret  above  these 
and  cellars  or  vaults  beneath.2  The  tiled  roof  was  steep,3  with 
gable-end  facing  north  on  Pipe-Office  Yard4  (now  Playhouse 
Yard),  and  dormer  windows  in  the  third  story.5  In  the  west  half 
of  this  section  there  were  two  rooms  on  the  second  floor6  and  two 
on  the  first  immediately  below.7  These  four  rooms  were  balanced 
on  the  east  by  an  entry  hall  and  a  great  winding  stone  stair-way.8 
The  main  entrance  of  the  building  was  out  of  Pipe-Office  Yard 
and  led  by  the  great  winding  stair  and  hall  to  all  the  rooms  of 
this  north  section,  as  also  on  the  second  floor  by  a  passage  through 
the  dividing  stone  wall  to  that  part  of  the  south  section  described 
as  the  "seaven  greate  upper  romes  .  .  .  sometyme  beinge  one 
greate  and  entire  rome."9 

The  south  section  is  of  chief  literary-historical  interest  because 
of  its  having  been  made  into  the  "Great  Hall"  of  Blackfriars  the- 
atre. At  the  date  of  purchase  this  section  was  two  stories  high10 
with  "cellar"  or  basement  rooms  besides.11  The  flat  roof  was  cov- 
ered with  lead,12  up  to  which  from  the  "seaven  greate  upper 
romes"  ran  a  stone  stair-way.13    The  lower  floor  of  this  section, 

1Cf.  Deed   to  Burbage  in   Halli-  Johnson.     Thev  had  a  separate  en- 
well-Phillips,     op.    cit.,    I,    299-300,  trance.— Idem,  "300,  38-43. 
Passim.  "Idem,  299,  21-23,  31-32;  300.  20- 

2 Ibid.     The   parts    describing  the  21,  24-25. 
north    section   are    299,    21-35;    300,  'Idem,  299.  21-23;  300,  20-21,  26- 

17-36.  38-53.  28,  28-31,   34~36. 

"See   Deed,   u.    s.,    description    of  "Idem,  299.   14-21;   299,   35—300, 

the  two  rooms  in  third  story  occu-  17;   300,   36-38. 
pied  by  Edward  Merry  (300,  21-31)  "Idem,  300,   11-17. 

and   of  the   garret   above    (300,    31-  "Idem,   299,    16-19.      Steep    roofs 

36).  were  covered  with  tile,  and  flat  roofs 

'Idem,  299,  23,  32;   300,  41-46.  with  lead.     During  a  recent  delight- 

'The  location  of  the  rooms  occu-  ful  itinerary  of  Hampton  Court  Pal- 
pied    by    Edward    Merry    (id..    300,  ace  by  members  and  friends  of  the 
I    would  seem  to  require  this  London    Shakespeare    League    con- 
BOrl  of  structure  so  common  to  the  ducted   by   Mr.    Ernest    Law.    I    was 
times.  impressed  with  the  appearance  of  a 

'Tins,    urn-  occupied  by  Charles  similar   flat   lead-covered    roof   of   a 

Bradshaw.      They    had    an    entrance  contemporary   part    of   the   structure 

from    the    main    stairway,    and    also  that    we    crossed    in     passing     from 

an  outside  stairway      Idem.  300,   IT-  "the  Great    Hall"  to  another  portion 

II,   50  of  that   Shakespeare  haunted  palace. 

'These    were    occupied    by    Peter  "Idem.  299,    17-18. 


38  CHILDREN  OF  THE  CHAPEL  AT  BLACKFRIARS 

immediately  under  the  "seaven  greate  upper  romes,"  was  divided 
into  lodgings  and  apartments.1  The  rooms  occupied  by  Thomas 
Bruskett,  called  "Midle  Romes  or  Midle  Stories,"2  comprised  an 
area  52  feet  by  37  feet  and  extended  southward  to  the  mansion  of 
Sir  George  Carey.3  Two  other  rooms  in  the  north  end  of  this  sec- 
tion were  occupied  by  Peter  Johnson,  and  were  connected  with 
the  two  rooms  he  had  on  the  same  floor  in  the  north  section.4 

The  Deed  to  Burbage  locates  Bruskett' s  apartments  as  being 
under  the  west  part  of  the  "seaven  greate  upper  romes,"5  but 
omits  to  mention  what  was  under  the  east  part.  But  from  the  size 
of  the  auditorium  made  by  Burbage,6  it  is  likely  there  was  at  date 
of  purchase  a  passageway  9  feet  wide  in  the  undescribed  location. 

The  entrance  to  the  lower  floor  of  this  section  was  on  the  south 
and  adjoined  the  gate  to  Sir  George  Carey's  mansion,  both  open- 
ing out  of  the  same  passageway  or  lane.7 

As  this  south  section  alone  was  converted  into  the  theatre-audi- 
torium, its  size  is  of  interest.  The  supposition  is  general  that 
both  auditorium  and  stage  were  small.  The  comparative  view 
already  given  and  the  definite  data  now  at  hand  show  this  is  not 
quite  a  correct  view. 

The  dimensions  of  52  x  37  feet,  specifically  stated  in  the  deed 
as  the  measure  of  only  those  apartments  of  the  lower  floor  occu- 
pied by  Thomas  Bruskett,8  have  been  assumed  to  be  the  size  of 
the  entire  theatre.9  But  in  fact  the  auditorium  alone  was  more 
than  one  and  one-half  and  the  entire  building  possibly  more  than 
two  and  one-half  times  that  size. 

xPart  of  these  were  occupied  by  The   two   rooms    at   the   north    end 

Thomas   Bruskett    (idem,  299,   35 —  occupied   by   Johnson   on   the   same 

300,    11),   and  the   others   by   Peter  floor     with     Bruskett     are     called 

Johnson   (idem,  300,  36-38).  "lower    rooms,"     doubtless    because 

2  The  designation  "middle  rooms"  there   the   basement   rooms   are   not 

or     "middle     story"    was    regularly  mainly  above  ground, 

used    to    mean    the    second    one    of  3Deed,  u.  s.,  299,  38 — 300,  11. 

three  stories.      [For  convenient  ex-  iIdem,  300,  36-41. 

ample,   see  contract   for  Hope   the-  5"lyeing  and  beinge  directlye  un- 

atre,    u.    s.,    302,    where    the    second  der  parte  of  those  of  the  sayd  seaven 

of  the  three  galleries  is  called  "the  upper  romes  which  lye  westwardes." 

midall  storie."]     In  the  present  case  — Idem,  300,  1-3. 

these  rooms  are  called  "middle"  be-  "Cf.  infra,  39\ 

cause  the  basement   rooms,   on   ac-  "Deed,  u.  s.,  300,  6-11. 

count  of  the  rapid  southward  slope  8Cf.  supra,  381. 

of  the  grounds,  constitute  the  first  "See    for    example,    C.    I.    Elton, 

story.     Hence  they  are  described  in  Shakespeare's   Family   and   Friends 

the  deed  as  "adjoining"  the  gardens.  (1904),  458. 


BLACKFRIARS  THEATRE  BUILDING 


39 


In  certain  documents  which  I  have  recently  found,  the  exact 
size  of  the  "Great  Hall"  or  auditorium  is  stated  as  66  x  46  feet, 
with  the  length  running  north  and  south.1  It  is  made  clear  that 
this  is  the  full  size  of  the  south  section.  The  dimensions  of  the 
north  section  can  only  be  approximated  from  this,  in  connection 
with  items  already  referred  to  in  the  deed,  and  others  yet  to  be 
mentioned  from  other  documents.  The  width  was  certainly  46 
feet,  while  no  possible  conception  of  the  arrangement  of  rooms 
from  first  floor  to  garret  would  seem  to  allow  an  approximation 
of  less  than  40  feet  north  and  south.  This  would  make  the  entire 
building  46  feet  wide  and  something  over  100  feet  long. 

The  auditorium  section  of  Blackfriars  theatre,  therefore,  was 
about  half  the  size  of  the  Globe  or  the  Fortune.2  The  entire  build- 
ing was  also  at  least  four  feet  wider  than  Salisbury  Court  theatre, 
but  may  or  may  not  have  exceeded  it  in  length. :} 

The  alterations  by  the  Ilurbages  in  converting  the  Blackfriars 
building  into  a  theatre  were  extensive  and  cost  much  time  and 
money.'     The  north  section  alone  required  but  little  change  to 


/The  "Great  Hall"  of  the  Black- 
friars is  described  as  "existeiu  pars 
et  parcella  illorMui  domor»m  et 
oedificactonum  ibidem  quae  fuerunt 
tunc  nuper  perquisitae  ct  emptor  de 
Willf/mo  Moore  Militr  per  Jaco- 
bum  Burbidge  defunctutn  patrem 
pra^dicfi  R\cardi  et  per  dictum  Ri- 
cardum  Burbidge  continent  per  es- 
timan'onem  in  longitudine  ah  aus- 
trale  ad  borealem  partem  eiusd^m 
sexaginta  et  sex  pedes  assissae  sit 
plus  siue  minus  ct  in  latitudine  ab 
occidental  ad  orientalltM  partem 
eiusdfm  quadraginta  et  sex  pedes 
oe  --it  plus  sine  minus."  [Ital- 
pplied  by  me  in  place  of  the 
original  characters  of  abbreviation]. 
documents  in  extenso  in  vol. 
Ill  of  forthcoming  work. 

'The  Fortune,  BO  x  BO  6400  sqft 
(See  Contract  for  Fortune,  in  II  d- 
liwell-Phillips,  op.  cit.,  I,  305a.) 
The  Blackfriar  I  tall,"  *'■<<  \ 

038   sqft     Tin-  Globe,  though 
the  model  for  tin-  Fortune  in  struc- 
tural   details,    was    nut    square    but 
mal. 
'The  grounds  purchased  for  the 


erection  of  Salisbury  Court  theatre 
(1G29)  were  42x140  feet.  It  is  not 
likely  that  the  theatre  occupied  the 
full  length  of  the  grounds,  but  its 
width  was  certainly  narrow  enough 
at  42  feet. — See  Indenture,  rj  July, 
1629,  Brit.  Mus.,  Add.  eh.  9290.  See 
this  and  other  documents  on  Salis- 
bury Court  theatre  published  by  Pe- 
ter Cunningham  in  The  Shakespeare 
Society's  Papers  (1849),  IV,  91-92, 
102. 

From  the  preceding  data,  the 
statement  of  James  Wright,  His- 
toria  Histrionica  (1699),  in  Haz- 
litt's  Dodsley,  Old  flays  <  L876), 
XV,  4os  (u.  s.,  36")  that  Black- 
friars, the  Cockpit,  ami  Salisbury 
Court  "were  all  three  built  almost 
alike  for  form  and  bigness,"  is  not 
quite  exact — nor  is  it  intended  to  be. 

No  farther  data  are  known  as  to 
dimensions  of  the  Cockpit 

"'Now   for  the   Blackfriars,   that 

is  our  inheritance;  our  father  pur- 
chased it  at  extreame  rates,  and 
made  it  into  a  playhouse  with  great 
charge  and  troble,"  saj  Cuthbert, 
Winifred,  and  young   William   Bur- 


40 


CHILDREN  OF  THE  CHAPEL  AT  BLACKFRIARS 


make  it  adaptable  to  the  new  uses.  The  lower  room  just  west  of 
the  main  entrance  and  the  room  just  above  it  were  still  kept  for 
residence  purposes,  and  were  reserved  by  Richard  Burbage  in 
making  the  later  lease  of  the  premises  to  Evans.1  The  other  west 
lower  room  was  converted  into  "the  Scholehouse"2  where  the 
Children  of  the  Chapel  maintained  at  Blackfriars  as  actors  were 
taught  various  subjects,  including  those  of  the  Grammar  school.3 
The  room  immediately  above  was  later  made  into  a  dining-room 
or  commons  for  the  boy-actors  by  Henry  Evans,  the  lessee,  at  his 
own  expense.4 

The  south  section  underwent  a  thorough  transformation.  The 
two  stories  were  converted  into  the  auditorium  called  "the  great 
Hall  or  Room,"5  which  was  separated  from  "the  Scholehouse" 
and  dining-room  above6  by  the  stone  wall7  between  the  two  sec- 
tions of  the  building.  The  roof  was  changed,  and  rooms,  prob- 
ably of  the  usual  dormer  sort,  were  built  above  the  Great  Hall.8 


bage  in  the  Globe-Black  friars  Share- 
Papers  of  1635.  In  Halliwell-Phil- 
lips,  op.  cit.,  I,  317. 

'See  supra,  364. 

5  "A  certen  roome,  called  the 
Scholehouse,  and  a  certen  chamber 
over  the  same." — Evans's  Bill  of 
Complaint  in  Evans  vs.  Kirkham, 
G.-F.,  213c.  These  same  two  rooms 
are  mentioned  over  and  over  in  the 
documents  discovered  by  both  Mr. 
Greenstreet  and  myself.  In  one  of 
the  latter,  for  example,  "the  schoole- 
howse"  is  definitely  located  as 
"schola  anglice  schoolehowse  ad 
borealem    finem    Aulae    pracdictae." 

8  See  Diary  of  the  Duke  of  Stet- 
tin, infra,   106-7,   113-25. 

*  Evans  speaks  of  the  chamber 
over  "the  Scholehouse"  as  "made 
fitt  by  your  oratour,  at  his  owne 
proper  costs  and  chardges,  to  dyne 
and  supp  in." — Evans's  Bill  of  Com- 
plaint in  Evans  vs.  Kirkham,  G.-F., 
214&. 

5  See  documents  in  G.-F,  211a, 
215c,  223c,  2276,  228c,  230a,  233&, 
239c,  &c.  The  same  appears  with 
equal  frequency  in  my  more  recent 
discoveries  referred  to  supra,  364. 

6"wch  said  scholehouse  and  cham- 
ber over  the  same  were  seuered  from 


the  said  great  hall." — Evans  vs. 
Kirkham,    G.-F.,    214&. 

7 See  Deed  {op.  cit.,  299c)  de- 
scribing the  vault  under  the  north 
entrance-hall  with  a  great  stone 
wall  on  the  south  side  of  it.  The 
different  height  and  method  of 
roofing  of  each  section  indicates 
this  wall  extended  from  the  vaults 
to  the  roof.  Also,  if  it  had  not  been 
for  this  stone  wall  in  the  way,  the 
auditorium  would  doubtless  have 
been  made  larger. 

8  The  deed  to  Burbage  (w.  s., 
173)  minutely  describes  and  lo- 
cates every  part  of  the  building, 
except  the  space  to  the  east  of  the 
rooms  occupied  on  the  first  floor 
by  Thomas  Bruskett  (cf.  supra, 
38\  385).  The  stairs  in  the  north 
section  led  up  into  the  gabled  garret. 
The  stone  stairway  out  of  "the 
seaven  greate  upper  romes"  ran  di- 
rectly up  to  the  leads  of  the  flat 
roof  of  the  south  section.  There 
were  no  rooms  above  the  second 
story  of  this  auditorium  section 
then.  But  when  the  building  was 
finally  remodeled  into  a  theatre  and 
Evans  leased  it,  there  were.  They 
are  mentioned  in  the  lawsuits  nu- 
merous times  in  connection  with  the 


BLACKFRIARS  THEATRE  BUILDING 


41 


These  by  their  adaptation  for  the  purpose  must  have  served  for 
the  lodgings  of  the  Children  of  the  Chapel  who,  as  shown  later,1 
were  boarded,  lodged,  and  instructed  at  the  theatre  under  the  su- 
pervision of  Henry  Evans.2  Evans  and  his  wife  had  residence  in 
"one  or  two  rooms"3  in  the  building, — doubtless  the  two  on  the 
third  floor  fronting  Pipe  Office  Yard. 

In  the  Great  Hall,  galleries4  and  lords'  rooms5  or  private  boxes 
with  lock  and  key0  were  built  around  the  sides.     No  published 


lease ;  e.  g.,  "All  that  great  Hall 
or  Rome  wth  the  roomes  over  the 
same." — Evans  vs.  Kirkham,  G.-F., 
211. 

"Whereas  Richard  Burbage  .  .  . 
hath  leased  and  to  farme  letten 
vnto  henrye  Evans  all  that  greate 
hall  or  Roome  with  the  roomes  ouer 
the  same  in  the  said  indenture  men- 
ctoned." — The  200  /.  bond  of  Evans 
to  Kirkham  et  al.  in  one  of  the  doc- 
uments which  I  recently  discovered. 
Cf.   infra,  92*. 

That  the  "roomes  ouer  the  same" 
were  of  little  use  except  in  connec- 
tion with  the  theatre  is  shown  by 
the  Plea  of  Burbage  and  Hemings 
in  the  suit  of  Kirkham  vs.  Painton, 
G.-F.,  228o. 

'Infra,  71,  73ff,  98ff,  lOoff. 

2  If  the  new  roof  was  given  a 
pitch  similar  to  that  of  the  north 
section,  there  would  have  been  a 
space  at  least  66  feet  long  and  about 
32  feet  wide  to  divide  into  rooms. 
Allowing  a  hall  of  6  feet,  the  re- 
maining space  would  have  made 
twelve  rooms,  each  11x13  feet. 
With  two  in  each  room,  this  would 
have  accommodated  twenty-four 
boys, — approximately  the  number 
required  in  most  of  the  plays  pre- 
sented by  the  Children  of  the  Chapel 
maintained  at  the  Blackfriars.  (Cf. 
infra,  78  > 

"...  one  or  two  roomes  where- 
in your   subiecl    then    inhabited."  - 
Kirkham,  G.-F.,  211r. 
'Galleries   are  mentioned   in   dif- 
ferent   documents    that    I    have    re- 
cently    brought     to     light;     c.     g., 
.  .  .  tocius    ilHug    magnae    Aulae 
vel    loci    anglice    Roome   cum    locis 


anglice  roomes  supra  ead^m  .  .  . 
cum  Theatro  anglice  a  Stage  por- 
ticibi^  anglice  Galleryes  et  sedilibus 
de  quantitate  specificate  in  scedula 
ad  hide  annexato"  &c. — Cf.  supra, 
36*. 

As  Ben  Jonson  was  writing  for 
no  other  company  than  the  Children 
of  the  Chapel  during  1600-1601,  the 
following  can  but  refer  to  incidents 
at  Blackfriars.  Also  every  identi- 
fiable reference  in  Satiroinastix  to 
Jonson  as  a  playwright  is  to  his 
Poetaster,  played  first  at  Blackfriars 
ca.  April,  1601. 

Horace  [Jonson]  is  made  to 
swear,  "You  shall  not  sit  in  a  gal- 
lery when  your  comedies  and  inter- 
ludes have  entered  their  actions  and 
there  make  vile  and  bad  faces  at 
every  line,"  &c. — Thomas  Dekker, 
Satiromastix  (ed.  T.  Hawkins,  Ori- 
gin of  the  English  Drama,  I 
III,    193. 

See  further  infra,  42. 

5  Horace  [Jonson]  is  further 
sworn,  "You  must  forswear  to  ven- 
ture on  the  stage  when  your  play  i> 
ended,  and  to  exchange  court'sies 
and  complements  with  gallanN  in 
the  lord's  rooms,  to  make  all  the 
house  rise  up  in  arms  and  to  cry, — 
That's  Horace,  that's  he,  that's 
he."— Ibid. 

6"A  little  Pique  happened  be- 
twixt the  Duke  of  Lenox  and  the 
Lord  Chamberlain  about  a  Box  at 
a  new  Play  in  the  Black  IVyars.  of 
which  the  Duke  had  got  the  Key." — 
Letter  from  Rev.  G.  Garrard  dated 
Jan.  25,  L635,  in  The  Earl  of  Straf- 
forde's  Letters  and  Dispatches 
(  1739),  I.  51]  Quote. 1  also,  but 
inexactly,  in   E.   Malotic,  op.  cit.,  Ill, 


42 


CHILDREN  OF  THE  CHAPEL  AT  BLACKFRIARS 


document  declares  how  many  galleries  there  were.  But  one  of 
the  recent  discoveries  from  which  quotation  has  just  been  made 
uses  the  plural  "porticibn^  anglice  Galleryes,"1  by  which  it  is  sure 
there  were  two  or  more,  while  The  Dutch  Courtesan  by  reference 
to  "the  middle  region"  makes  it  clear  there  were  three.2  Also  the 
available  space  of  two  full  stories3  would  have  allowed  an  upper 
gallery,  a  middle  gallery,  and  the  usual  lower  gallery  on  the  level 
with  the  stage.4  In  that  part  of  the  lower  gallery  that  adjoined 
the  stage  must  have  been  the  chief  loges  or  boxes  or  rooms  for 
gentlemen  and  lords,5 — to  which  reference  is  made  when  Horace 
[Jonson]  in  Satironiastix  is  accused  of  coming  on  the  stage  at  the 
close  of  his  play  and  exchanging  courtesies  and  compliments  with 


749,  and  J.  P.  Collier,  op.  cit.,  Ill, 
145. 

Although  the  date  of  this  notice 
is  1635,  there  are  reasons  to  believe 
that  the  structure  and  arrangement 
of  the  "rooms"  was  the  same  from 
the  first. 

xCf.  supra,  414. 

2"  ...  And  now,  my  very  fine 
Heliconian  gallants,  and  you,  my 
worshipful  friends  in  the  middle 
region." — Cockledemov's  Epilogue 
to  Marston's  The  Dutch  Courtesan, 
V,  iii,  162-64.  Played  at  Black- 
friars  ca.  autumn    1602. 

Cf.  also  "middle  rooms"  and 
"middle  stories,"  supra,  382. 

3  The  Fortune  contract  (u.  s., 
293)  calls  for  three  stories,  the 
first  12  feet,  the  second  11  feet,  and 
the  third  9  feet,  a  total  of  32  feet 
Blackfriars  auditorium  must  have 
been  of  nearly  or  quite  an  equal 
height.  This  might  well  have  been. 
Any  one  familiar  with  the  nobler 
mediaeval  monastic  or  conventual 
buildings  is  aware  that  their  ceil- 
ings are  generally  very  high.  The 
upper  story  of  Blackfriars  seems  to 
have  been  built  and  roofed  by  the 
friars  as  a  single  room  for  audi- 
torial purposes,  and  certainly  dur- 
ing Sir  Thomas  Cawarden's  time 
was  used  as  such,  even  for  presen- 
tation of  plays,  and  for  rehearsals 
of  interludes,  masques,  &c,  in  prep- 
aration for  Court  entertainment.  A 
room  66  x  46  feet  built  and  used  for 


such  purposes  could  hardly  be  less 
than  16  to  18  feet  in  height, — pos- 
sibly rather  more  than  less.  If  then 
the  lower  floor  was  but  12  to  14 
feet  high,  the  reconstructed  "Great 
Hall"  had  a  height  of  28  to  32  feet. 
With  4  feet  as  the  height  of  the 
stage-level  gallery,  this  28  to  32  feet 
of  space  allowed  an  average  height 
of  8  to  9  feet  for  each  gallery-story. 

4  This  low  gallery  was  charac- 
teristic of  contemporary  public  the- 
atres. (See  for  example  the  De 
Witt — Van  Buchell  sketch  of  the 
Swan.)  It  is  still  found  in  Euro- 
pean theatres,  especially  in  those  of 
a  date  not  quite  modern.  No  better 
example  could  be  cited  than  the  old 
Stadttheater  of  Freiburg  in  Baden, 
not  only  in  this  particular  of  the 
lower  gallery  but  in  most  other  par- 
ticulars ;  for  it  was  remodeled  as 
Blackfriars  was  from  part  of  a  me- 
diaeval monastery.  (Cf.  infra,  com- 
plete work,  vol.  I.) 

This  feature  of  a  stage-level  gal- 
lery around  the  whole  room  appears 
in  the  American  theatre  in  only  the 
most  rudimentary  form,  extending 
no  farther  back  from  the  stage  than 
the  two  or  three  private  boxes  and 
the  one  or  two  open  loges  at  their 
rear. 

''Cf.  supra,  415,  416,  422. 

In  the  public  theatres  these  "gen- 
tlemen's rooms"  were  at  right  and 
left  of  the  stage  with  a  passage  be- 
tween.     In    the    Swan    sketch    they 


BLACKFRIARS  THEATRE  BUILDING  43 

gallants  in  the  lords'  rooms.1  Dekker  evidently  thinking  in  an- 
other instance  of  the  gallantly  dressed  audience  on  the  Blackfriars 
stage  as  constituting  the  chief  part  of  the  "city"  of  elegance  calls 
these  lords'  rooms  "now  but  the  Stages  Suburbs. "- 
The  stage  was  in  the  south  end  of  the  "Great  Hall."3 
It  has  been  assumed  since  the  days  of  Wright's  Historia  llis- 
trionica  (1699)/  and  widely  disseminated  on  the  authority  of 
Malone5  that  the  Blackfriars  stage  was  small.  But  "small"  and 
"large"  are  such  merely  relative  terms  that  upon  the  basis  of  mod- 
ern notions  no  private  or  public  stage  of  Shakespeare's  time  could 
be  regarded  as  "large."  The  best  we  can  do  is  to  take  a  com- 
parative view  of  the  stages  of  the  time  on  their  own  basis. 

The  assumption  that  Blackfriars  stage  was  small  is  based  upon 
the  primary  assumption  that  all  the  private  theatres — Blackfriars, 
Whitefriars,  Paul's,  Cockpit  Salisbury  Court — were  built  alike 
and  had  stages  alike.  But  in  fact  the  only  reference  cited  by 
Malone,  Collier,  and  the  rest  on  the  size  of  Blackfriars  stage  is 
taken  from  a  Paul's  play.0  Quite  the  reverse  of  the  usual  opinion, 
the  truth  seems  to  be  that  the  stages  of  the  public  theatres  had 

are  labeled  "orchestra"  (i.  e,,  in  the  hall  and  under  the  east  end  of  the 

Latin  sense),  and  are  mentioned  in  stage.     It  speaks  of  the  need  of  re- 

the  Fortune  contract,  the  Hope  con-  pair  "in   extcriori   ostio   ducente  ad 

tract,  and  numerous  plays  as  "gen-  praedicta.       dimissa      pra<?missa      et 

tlemen's    rooms."      See    also    infra,  ...   in   paviamento   per  orientolem 

11    15,   136-41.  partem     praedictae     Auloe     et     in 

But  the  physical  nature  of  Black-  paviamento  subtir  orientolem  tinera 

friars   building   and   stage    required  Cuiusdam  Theatri  anglice  the  Stage 

a   different   arrangement.     Our  pri-  in   Aula  praedicta"  &c. 

vate  boxes  are  the  outgrowth.  4 Infra,  43*. 

lCf.  supra,  415.  'Infra.  438. 

'Infra,    140*,    141-42.  See   mfra>  130-311. 

"The   stage  could  not  have  been  Malone   (op.  at..  III.  «]■),  how- 
placed  in  the  way  of  the  main  en-  ever>   seems   to  base  his   conclusion 
trance,  which  was  at  the  north  when  on    James    Wright's     statement     in 
the  purchase  was  made  by  Burbage.  Htstoria  Htstrtontca  (u.  s.,  36 
No  other  entrance  after  the  remod-  concerning     the     similar     size     and 
eling  could   have  led  to  all  the  de-  form    of    Blackfriars.    (  ockpit,    and 
raised   premises.     The  stage   is   fur-  Salisbury   Court,   coupled    with    two 
ther   excluded   from   the   north   end  Ilncs    of    the    epilogue    to     Liiomaa 
as  also  from  the  sides  of  the  hall  Nabbes's  Tottenham                 ted  at 
■    of   the    recently    discovered  Salisbury     Court     1638      (cf.     tith- 
documents   («.  s.,  36*)   which  men-  page),  which   read  as   folio*    : 
rions     minor     repairs     in     the    en-  "When    others'    fill'd    rooms    with 
trance  leading  to  all   the  premises,  neglect  disdain  ye, 
and  In  the  easl  and  west  walls  and  My  little  house  with  thanks  shall 
the  floor  along  the  east  side  of  the  entertain  ye." 


44  CHILDREN  OF  THE  CHAPEL  AT  BLACKFRIARS 

only  general  features  alike,  with  important,  particular  differences ; 
while  the  stages  of  the  three  earliest  contemporary  private  the- 
atres, Blackfriars,  Whitefriars,  and  Paul's,  differed  widely  not 
only  from  these  but  also  from  each  other.1 

Again,  it  is  assumed  that  in  all  three  of  these  private  theatres 
gallants  sat  on  the  stage,  for  which  practice  stools  were  provided. 
This  assumption  likewise  is  based  upon  the  same  primary  assump- 
tion that  the  stages  of  all  the  private  theatres  were  alike,  and  that 
the  custom  practiced  on  one  was  the  custom  also  on  the  others. 
On  the  contrary,  every  reference  to  this  practice  quoted  by  Ma- 
lone,  Collier,  and  others,  and  every  one  that  my  own  research  re- 
veals, in  the  period  of  late  Elizabeth  and  early  James  I  prior  to 
the  establishment  of  the  Cockpit,  is  either  from  Blackfriars  plays 
or  in  reference  to  that  stage.  The  custom,  as  pointed  out  else- 
where, spread  to  later  theatres.2  But  there  is  no  evidence  of  it  at 
either  Paul's  or  Whitefriars.  On  the  contrary,  we  are  distinctly 
informed  that  the  stage  at  Paul's  was  "so  very  little,"3  that  auditors 
were  not  allowed  to  sit  there.  As  to  Whitefriars  there  is  no  evi- 
dence on  either  side. 

The  fact  that  gallants  sat  on  the  Blackfriars  stage  without 
"wronging  the  general  eye"3  or  hindering  the  players,4  while  at 
Paul's  they  could  not3  and  at  the  Globe  were  not  allowed  to5  and 
at  other  public  theatres  were  not  provided  for6  indicates  that 
Blackfriars  stage  was,  if  not  large,  at  least  not  small ;  and  also 
that  it  was  of  a  different  construction  from  its  earliest  contem- 
poraries.7 Even  more  under  these  circumstances  than  if  they 
were  lacking  is  the  presentation  of  elaborate  dance  and  masque,8 
— that  attractive  spectacular  feature  of  nearly  every  Blackfriars 
play  from  1600  to  the  death  of  Elizabeth,9 — further  indicative 
of  an  adequate  stage.    After  August  9,  1608,10  even  with  gallants 

1The     stages     of     Cockpit     and  ' Infra,  137-41. 

Salisbury  Court,  built  later  on  the  7Cf.  infra,  46-49,  and  plats,  50-51. 

model  of  Blackfriars,  are  not  here  8 Infra,  118-19. 

in  question.  "Infra,  119-22. 

2  For   the   full    discussion  on  the  10The  Blackfriars  was  taken  over 

origin  and  influence  of  the  custom  by  the  Burbage  company  by  six  sep- 

of   sitting  on   the    stage,    see   infra,  arate  indentures  of  lease  from  Rich- 

130-47.  ard    Burbage   to    his    fellow    share- 

zInfra,  1311.  holders, — Shakespeare     among     the 

*Infra,  142.  number. — August  9,   1608,  just  fol- 

*  Infra,  1344,  136.  lowing  the  termination  of  the  Chil- 


BLACKFRIARS  THEATRE  BUILDING  45 

still  frequenting  their  accustomed  places,  the  Blackfriars  stage 
was  of  sufficient  proportions  and  equipment  for  the  Burbage 
company,1  the  largest  in  London,  to  present  on  its  boards  the 
great  Shakespearean  plays  with  an  excellence  that  is  doubtless 
not  disproportionately  measured  by  the  satisfaction  of  the  audi- 
ence and  the  consequent  financial  returns  exceeding  by  a  thou- 
sand pounds  in  a  single  winter  die  amount  usually  received  at 
the  Globe.2 

The  preceding  comparative  view  gives  a  general  notion  of 
Blackfriars  stage  more  nearly  true  than  the  "little"  conception 
current  in  stage  annals.  While  no  published  document  declares 
the  exact  dimensions,  it  is  possible  from  data  now  at  hand  to 
translate  this  general  notion  into  nearer  mathematical  definiteness. 

It  was  the  physical  limitations  at  Blackfriars  that  determined 
the  width  of  the  stage  and  made  it  in  its  relation  to  galleries  and 
audience  different  from  all  public  theatre  stages. 

In  the  case  of  the  Fortune,  modeled  after  the  Globe,  the  stage 
was  43  feet  wide,  with  a  passage  of  6  feet  on  each  side  between 
the  stage  and  that  part  of  the  lower  gallery  where  the  gentle- 
men's rooms  were,3 — the  place  labeled  "orchestra"  (in  the 
classical  sense)  in  the  sketch  of  the  Swan  showing  a  similar 
arrangement.4  As  pointed  out  later5  this  condition  made  it  im- 
possible for  the  custom  of  sitting  on  the  stage  to  receive  encour- 
agement at  the  Globe,  the  Fortune,  the  Swan,  and  other  public 
theatres,  for  such  spectators  would  have  cut  off  the  view  of  the 
patrons  in  the  gentlemen's  rooms. 

dren   of   the    Queen's    Revels   there  to   Burbage    (cf.   infra,  I,   part   ii), 

through  the  drastic  action  of  James  which  is  later  regarded  by  the  Bur- 

I.      See    documents    from    English  bages  as  a  "purchase"  of  the  lease 

and   French   archives   in   my   forth-  (cf.  infra,  I,  part  ii).     According  to 

coming   three-volume   work   on   the  the     newly     discovered     documents 

drama   and   stage   of   Shakespeare's  concerning  Shakespeare  and  the  the- 

time.     Also  see  other  extensive  doc-  atres  just  referred  to   (supra,    H    >. 

uments   which    T   have   recently  dis-  the   Blackfriars   was   then   leased   to 

covered  on  Shakespeare,  Globe,  and  Shakespeare    and    fellows     for    the 

Blackfriars,  in  forthcoming  separate  same    amount    as    Evans    had    been 

publication.  paying.     They  took  it  over  at  once 

'Any    possible    notion    that    the  just    as    it    was    when    Evans    was 

stage  or  theatre  was  changed  in  ar-  forced  by  the  King  to  give  it  up. 

rangement  or  equipment  to   accom-  *Cf.  supra,  35*. 

modate    the    needs   of   the    Burbage  *Cf.   Fortune  contract,   u.   s..  29*. 

company   is  precluded  by  documen-  *See    the    Van    Buchell — Do  Witt 

tary   evidence.      The    former   lessee,  sketch,  u.  s.,  31*. 

Henry  Evans,  surrendered  his  lease  'Infra.   136-38. 


46  CHILDREN  OF  THE  CHAPEL  AT  BLACKFRIARS 

But  if  at  Blackfriars  the  stage  had  been  modeled  after  those 
of  the  public  theatres  with  an  aisle  of  six  feet  or  even  of  three 
feet  between  stage  and  galleries,  the  stage  would  have  been  but 
about  13  to  19  feet  wide, — too  narrow  for  acting,  even  with  no 
spectators  sharing  it. 

So  the  Blackfriars  stage  was  through  necessity  built  on  a  plan 
of  its  own.  The  aisle-space  as  well  as  the  gallery-space  at  right 
and  left  had  to  be  utilized  as  the  wings  of  the  new-style  stage. 
The  width  of  the  hall  allowed  the  limit  of  46  feet  as  the  width 
of  this  extended  stage.  It  was  this  construction  that  gave  Black- 
friars a  stage  roomy  enough  for  unhampered  acting  and  at  the 
same  time  allowed  gallants  to  occupy  coveted  places  "on  the 
stage"  at  right  and  left  cf  the  actors,  in  the  full  admiration  of 
the  house,  but  without  "wronging  the  general  eye"1  or  obstruct- 
ing the  view  of  any  one. 

When  the  Blackfriars  custom  of  sitting  on  the  stage  was  im- 
ported into  France,2  it  carried  with  it  also  the  form  of  stage- 
structure  on  which  it  originated.  The  arrangement  of  seats  at 
the  sides  of  the  stage  in  French  theatres  as  shown  by  the  testi- 
mony of  Tallemant  des  Reaux,3  Moliere,4  Voltaire,5  and  Goethe,6 
is  therefore  reflexively  contributive  to  a  correct  conception  of 
the  stage-structure  at  Blackfriars.  In  the  evidences  from  per- 
formances at  Blackfriars,7  Dekker's  The  Guts'  Horn-Booke,8  and 
other  sources,9  the  stage-patrons  occupied  the  same  level  as 
the  actors.  This  fact  is  likewise  shown  by  the  testimony  of  the 
above  chief  French  contemporaries  of  the  custom  on  the  Paris 
stage.  Goethe,  however,  who  saw  the  last  of  this  practice  in  a 
French  theatre  at  Frankfurt  in  1759,  reports  that  the  seats  at  the 
sides  of  the  stage  there  were  ranged  on  a  slope  slightly  above 
the  stage  level,  but  with  special  reservations  still  on  the  stage  for 
officers  and  other  people  of  importance.10 

The  galleries  of  Blackfriars  as  of  its  foreign  followers  ended 
at  the  line  of  the  stage-front, — just  where  our  evolved  first  pri- 
vate boxes  now  are.11    But  there  was  no  wall,  nothing  more  than 

"■Infra,  1311.  'Infra,   132-134. 

2Infra,  143-47.  sInfra,  1334,   1402,  1404. 

3Infra,  1433.  "Infra,  132\   1323,  1425,  1431. 

4  Infra,  143*.  10  Infra,  1462. 

5Infra,  145\  1452.  "Supra,  42-43,  and  plat,  50-51. 

"Infra,  1462. 


BLACKFRIARS  THEATRE  BUILDING  47 

a  railing,  between  the  termination  of  the  lower  gallery  and  the 
wings  of  the  stage  where  the  gallants  were  wont  to  sit  in  full 
view. 

Allowing  103/2  feet  for  the  width  of  each  gallery,1  with  a  cor- 
responding but  more  elastic  space  on  the  stage  at  right  and  left 
for  gallants,  there  was  still  a  minimum  width  of  25  feet  for  the 
actors, — as  great  a  space  as  sometimes  used  on  the  modern  stage.2 
The  full  46  feet  might  have  been  used  on  occasion.'  But  such 
practice  could  have  been  but  rarely  necessary  or  expedient. 
Hence  the  use  of  these  wings  rather  as  a  source  of  revenue  from 
social  fops  whose  prime  object  was  not  to  see  the  acting  but  to 
display  their  fine  dress,  especially  to  those  in  the  high-priced 
seats  of  the  first  gallery,  or  to  patronize  the  house  with  their 
grand  presence. 

From  the  available  evidences  there  is  no  reason  to  suppose  a 
stage  at  Blackfriars  much  smaller  than  the  public  theatres  had, 
as  has  hitherto  been  done.4 

The  Fortune  stage,  certainly  one  of  the  largest  in  London, 
extended  to  the  middle  of  the  yard, — a  distance  of  40  feet.  But 
a  tiring-house  at  the  rear  took  off  12  J/  feet,  leaving  a  depth  of 
2j]/2  feet  for  the  actors. 

The  construction  of  Blackfriars  necessitated  a  different  ar- 
rangement for  tiring-house  and  stage.  The  accompanying  sug- 
gestive plat  of  the  seating  capacity  of  Blackfriars,5  drawn  to 
scale  and  with  reference  to  known  details,  shows  the  possibility 
of  an  ample  stage  of  25  feet  in  depth,  with  a  passage  of  four  feet 
at  the  rear  connecting  the  two  lower  rooms  of  the  tiring-house. 

With  an   expandable   stage   approximately   25   feet   deep   and 

'The  galleries   in  the   Globe  and  feet,  ranging  down  to  20  and  up  to 

Fortune   were   12%    feet  wide  from  40  or  more. — See  Julius  Cohn's  OM- 

the  outside  of  the  building,  or  about  cial    Theatrical  Guide    (1907),    XII. 

12  t  .  with  a  10-inch  "juttey  passim. 

forwards"  in  the  two  upper  galler-  'An   actor  at   the  extreme  limits 
ies. — See  Fortune  contract,  u.  s.,  29*.  of   the   stage    would   have    been   cut 
See  further,  infra,  plats,  50-51.  off  from  the  view  of  only  those  OO 
2The  modern  proscenium  opening  the  same  side  in  the  two  upper  gal- 
ranges   from   about   20  to  40   feet, —  leries.     Sometimes  in  a  modern  the- 
the  latter  serving  for  the  most  elab-  atre   he   is   cut   oft    from   all    specta- 
orate   grand   opera,    and   the    former  tors  tvt  that   side  of  the  house. 
in  plays  and  "shows"  in  the  smaller  *Cf.  supra,  •!"•. 
theatres      Tn  the  chief  American  cit-            ' 'Infra,   50  51. 
ies   the   average   is   about  30   to   35 


48 


CHILDREN  OF  THE  CHAPEL  AT  BLACKFRIARS 


from  25  to  46  feet  wide  as  occasion  might  require,  the  genera) 
notion  of  the  size  and  structure  of  Blackfriars  stage  derived 
from  known  conditions  as  presented  on  preceding  pages,  is  merely 
translated  into  nearer  definiteness.1 

At  the  rear  of  the  stage  and  over  the  passage  was  a  permanent 
balcony  extending  doubtless  the  full  width  between  the  two  lower 
rooms  of  the  tiring-house.  The  balcony  did  occasional  service 
for  certain  situations  in  the  plays,  but  seems  to  have  been  used 
mainly  as  the  station  for  the  musicians.2 

The  Blackfriars  stage  was  elastic  in  depth  as  well  as  in  width, 
and  could  according  to  the  demands  of  the  given  play  be  varied 
by  curtains  or  traverses  of  any  required  number  placed  at  any 
required  distance  between  the  balcony  and  the  front  of  the  stage.3 
This  flexibility  was  further  increased  by  the  use  of  a  canopy4  as 
occasion  required,  which  could  be  set  anywhere  on  the  stage  to 
be  removed  at  will. 

But  the  evidences  of  structure,  arrangement,  furnishing,  and 
equipment  of  Blackfriars  stage  must  be  deferred  to  a  later  work.5 


1  While  I  have  little  doubt  that 
the  dimensions  and  other  items  here 
presented  will  ultimately  prove  to 
be  substantially  correct,  I  shall  not 
be  satisfied  until  I  turn  up  certain 
documents  I  am  now  on  trace  of, 
which  I  am  confident  from  the  na- 
ture of  them  will  settle  details  with 
finality. 

2 It  is  this  close  juxtaposition  of 
the  music  to  the  tiring-house  that 
gives  point  to  the  remark,  in  one 
of  the  Chapel  Children's  plays,  about 
the  author's  swearing  in  the  tiring- 
house,  and  thereby  railing  the  music 
out   of   tune,   as    follows : 

"I  assure  you  sir  we  are  not  so 
officiously  befriended  by  him  [the 
author,  Ben  Jonson],  as  to  have  his 
presence  in  the  tiring-house,  to 
prompt  us  aloud,  stamp  at  the  book- 
holder,  swear  for  our  properties, 
curse  the  poor  tire-man,  rayle  the 
musick  out  of  tune,"  &c. — Induction 
to  Cynthia's  Revels.  At  Blackfriars 
ca.  April,   1600. 

8  The  gallants  on  the  stage, — 
whose  chief  end  at  the  theatre  was 
not  to  see  but  to  be  seen, — are  some- 


times made  the  butt  of  pleasantry  for 
ostentatiously  "standing  at  the  helme 
to  steere  the  passage  of  scaenes"  («. 
i.,  1401),  solely  for  the  opportunity 
of  displaying  themselves  and  their 
fine  dresses  the  better  to  the 
audience. 

The  crossing  of  traverses  opposite 
their  seats  therefore  could  not  have 
been  an  annoyance  to  them  but  may 
the  rather  have  contributed  to  their 
notion  of  pleasure  by  the  opportu- 
nity afforded  for  officious  service. 

4  The  canopy  was  a  cloth  or  can- 
vas affair  in  the  shape  of  a  covered 
room,  a  shop,  a  high  wall,  or  other 
necessary  enclosing  apparatus.  It  is 
still  an  accessory  more  common  on 
the  European  than  the  American 
stage.  One  of  the  most  effective 
uses  comes  to  mind  in  connection 
with  a  recent  masterly  presentation 
of  Wagner's  Die  Meistersinger  von 
Niimberg  on  a  German  stage  with 
acting  and  staging  as  perfect  as  the 
singing. 

"There  is  some  hope  that  the 
chapter  on  this  head  may  be  ready 
for  the  completed  work.     But  there 


BLACKFRIARS  THEATRE  BUILDING 


49 


It  may  be  said  here  simply  that  an  examination  of  even  such  ma- 
terials as  now  are  known  shows  a  stage  plastic  to  the  play  in 
hand  in  all  particulars,  a  stage  of  real  and  individual  existence, 
different  in  certain  essentials  from  the  ratiocinative  results  of 
studies  hitherto  made,  in  which  piays  of  private  and  public  the- 
atres have  been  in  judicially  thrown  together  to  make  a  sort  of 
universalized  or  theoretical  stage  that  has  no  historical  basis.1 

It  seems  hardly  necessary  to  add  that  the  rooms,  galleries,  and 
pit  of  Blackfriars  were  all  provided  with  seats.2 

As  already  pointed  out,  the  Great  Hall  of  Blackfriars  was 
about  half  the  size  of  the  Globe  or  Fortune.3  Its  capacity  for 
accommodating  spectators  was  also  not  far  from  half. 


is  nothing  sure  about  it.  Not  all 
evidences  are  available  which  are 
necessary  in  putting  out  a  final 
statement  of  the  facts.  I  have  con- 
fidence from  the  definite  clues  un- 
earthed that  ultimately  I  shall  reach 
documents  giving  schedules  of  the 
furnishing  and  equipment  of  Black- 
friars stage  and  theatre,  as  also  of 
the  Globe.  It  is  merely  a  question 
of  time  and  means. 

'For  a  late  example,  based  upon 
and  supporting  Professor  Brandl's 
alternation  theory,  see  Cecil  Brod- 
meier,  Die  Shakespeare-Buhne  nach 
den  alten  Buhnenanweisungen 
(Diss.  Jena,  1904).  This  work 
takes  the  plays  of  Shakespeare  per- 
formed at  "The  Theatre,"  the  Cur- 
tain, Globe,  and  Blackfriars,  and 
constructs  of  those  four  dissimilar 
stages  a  single  composite. 

More  commendable  in  theory  and 
generally  combative  of  Brodmeier's 
position  is  the  recent  work  of  G.  F. 
Reynolds,  Some  Principles  of  Eliz- 
abethan Staging,  in  Modem  Philol- 
ogy, April  and  June,  1905,  later 
reprinted  in  separate  form  (Diss. 
University  of  Chicago).  It  is  unfor- 
tunate that  the  author  did  not  from 
the  first  follow  the  plan  he  leaned 
toward,  and  use  his  masses  of  ma- 
terial in  studying  the  individual  the- 
atres to  which  the  respective  plays 
belonged, — as  lie  must  ultimately  do. 
Instead  he  has  followed  up  one  sin- 
gle   stage-feature    after    another    in 


plays  ranging  through  Elizabeth's 
reign  and  into  the  period  of  James 
I,  which  were  presented  at  various 
theatres  or  not  presented  anywhere 
(e.  g.,  the  Percy  plays),  and  tried 
to  establish  or  disestablish  there- 
from certain  principles  of  staging 
or  facts  of  stage  structure  and 
equipment  for  the  dissimilar  thea- 
tres throughout  that  long  time. 

In  both  these  works  there  is  the 
impairing  spirit  of  "proving"  some- 
thing and  of  establishing  history  by 
deductive  argument.  With  the 
great  industry  displayed  and  the 
splendid  collection  of  materials  in 
each  study,  it  would  be  high  satis- 
faction to  find  one  new  fact  of  dra- 
matic or  stage  history  brought  to 
light  or  one  point  of  debate  placed 
beyond  controversy.  It  must  not 
be  expected  however  that  any  study 
of  stage-directions  or  other  internal 
evidence  can  ever  be  final  in  mat- 
ters of  stage-history.  Such  a  study 
at  best  can  be  but  corroborative, 
never  determinative  of  data,  and 
may  thus  rightly  serve  to  illuminate 
and  enliven  placid  realities. 

*A  schedule  of  seats  was  at- 
tached to  the  lease  of  Burbage  to 
Evans.     See  supra,  36*. 

3Cf.  supra,  39. 

The  outside  dimensions  of  the 
Fortune  were  SO  x  80  =  6400  sqft. 
The  inside  dimensions  of  Blackfri- 
ars auditorium  were  66  x  46  =  3036 
sqft. 


50  CHILDREN  OF  THE  CHAPEL  AT  BLACKFRIARS 

To  exhibit  at  once  the  size,  capacity,  and  general  features  in 
a  single  view,  I  have  inserted  a  suggestive  plat  of  the  seating 
capacity  of  the  Blackfriars,  and  another  of  the  Fortune,  side  by 
side, — the  only  two  theatres  whose  dimensions  are  exactly  known. 
Both  are  drawn  to  a  scale  of  1/l6"=i'. 

In  the  absence  of  exact  data  as  to  size,  number,  and  arrange- 
ment of  seats,  I  first  experimented  with  several  conceivable  modes 
of  seating  before  allowing  these  plats  to  stand.  If,  for  example, 
De  Witt  was  correct  in  saying  the  Swan  held  3000  people,  then 
the  Fortune,  certainly  considerably  more  capacious,  must  have 
accommodated  more  than  3000.  But  no  method  of  arrangement, 
without  reducing  the  seats  to  an  impossible  size,  filling  up  the 
aisles,  and  standing  the  audience  of  the  yard  like  corpses  packed 
on  end  would  make  even  the  Fortune  accommodate  3000.  Since 
this  larger  theatre  could  not  contain  3000,  Priest  De  Witt's  dec- 
laration that  the  smaller  Swan  could  may  be  laid  to  rest  for  all 
time  as  an  over-enthusiastic  and  very  inaccurate  guess.1 

From  the  many  thousands  of  contemporary  documents  I  have 
examined,  directly  bearing  upon  the  life  of  the  times,  I  am  more 
and  more  convinced  that  the  people  of  the  time  of  Elizabeth  and 
James  were  as  solicitous  for  means  of  comfort  as  we  are  today. 
Quite  contrary  to  the  ill-founded  notion  commonly  circulated  by 

'Some  farther  conception  of  the  Boston, 

monstrousness  of  De  Witt's  estimate  Hollis  Street  Theatre    .     .       1640 

may  be  gained  by  a  comparison  of  Park        1277 

the    size    of    modern    theatres.      As  Tremont        1405 

America  boasts  some  of  the  largest  Colonial         ....     1653 

of  the  world,   I   quote  certain  sta-  Chicago. 

tistics    on   seating   capacity   as    pre-  Illinois 1285 

sented  in  Julius  Cohn's  Official  The-  Powers        1113 

atrical  Guide    (1907),   XII,  passim.  Garrick 1400 

But  it  will  be  noticed  that  the  best  Grand  Opera  House    .     .         1700 

of  these  theatres  are  not  the  largest.  The  Studebaker     ....       1549 

Great  music  halls,  auditoriums,  col-  Chicago    Opera   House    .         1700 

iseums,    gardens,    &c,    are    left   out  Auditorium   (largest  in  the 

of  the  lists.  world)        4079 

New  York.  These    are    representative    exam- 

Belasco's  theatre        .     .     .        950  pies.      An    examination    of    official 

Criterion 1100  statistics  shows  the  seating  capacity 

Daly's         1150  of  the  majority  of  American  thea- 

Empire         1100  tres  ranges  from  less  than  1000  to 

Garrick  (Ch.  Frohman)    .         910  about   1500, — approximately  a  third 

New  Amsterdam     .     .     .         1675  to  a  half  De  Witt's  reported  size  of 

Lvceum  (Dan  Frohman)   .        909  the  Swan. 

Wallack's 1274 


BLACKFRIARS  THEATRE  BUILDING  51 

writers  on  stage-history  that  audiences  put  up  with  woeful  dis- 
comforts simply  to  see  a  great  play  well  enacted,  it  would  seem 
that  reasonable  consideration  was  given  the  tastes  of  different 
classes  of  patrons,  and  that  those  in  the  choicer  parts  of  the  house 
were  charged  the  higher  prices  on  account  of  the  better  accom- 
modations as  well  as  the  better  view.  The  theatre  was  then  a 
larger  centre  of  social  contact  than  now, — a  spirit  still  somewhat 
preserved  in  parts  of  Europe,  but  wholly  lost  to  the  amusement- 
loving  theatre-goer  of  America.  The  best  boxes  or  rooms  were 
patronized  by  lords,  nobles,  and  other  gentlemen  used  to  the  best 
at  home  and  in  society,  and  it  is  unlikely  that  they  should  have 
gone  in  such  numbers  if  discomforts  had  been  so  great  as  to 
cause  them  to  do  penance  while  watching  the  play.  The  Black- 
friars  especially  was  frequented  by  the  London  elite,  both  gentle- 
men and  ladies,  in  the  wake  of  Queen  and  Court,  who  must  have 
found  ample  provision  for  comfort  there,  in  seats  not  too  crowded 
to  accommodate  farthingale  and  puffed  trunk-hose.  Thomas 
Platter  of  Basel,  who  visited  London  in  1599,  in  speaking  of  cer- 
tain unnamed  theatres,  mentions  the  fact  that  the  higher  priced 
seats  there — costing  but  3  d.  however — were  provided  with  cush- 
ions.1 All  this  is  suggestive  that  if  the  common  art  of  upholster- 
ing of  the  time  may  not  have  contributed  even  more  to  the  com- 
fort of  seats  ranging  up  to  a  shilling  in  price,  at  least  the  general 
comfort  was  satisfactory. 

In  finally  drawing  these  plats  of  Blackfriars  and  the  Fortune, 
such  width  and  arrangement  of  seats  has  been  indicated  as  would 
reasonably  provide  for  the  comfortable  and  safe  care  of  the  audi- 
ence. In  both  plats  all  rows  of  seats  in  all  galleries  are  30  inches 
apart  from  heel  to  heel,  and  each  seat  in  the  side  galleries  is  22l/2 
inches  wide,  while  in  the  rear  galleries  of  the  Fortune  they  are 
19  and  of  the  Blackfriars  18  inches  wide.2  The  width  of  aisles 
and  all  other  dimensions  are  sufficiently  indicated  in  the  plats. 

"...  begeret  er  aber  am  lustig-  Prof.  Giistav  Binz.  "Londoner  The- 

esten     orl     auf     kissen     ze     sitzen,  ater     und     Scbauspicle     im     Tahre 

tlicht    allcin   alles   woll    sihet.  1590."  in  AngUa  (1899),  XXTl".  459. 
Bondern  auch   gesehen  kan  werden,  5In    modern     theatres    the    seats 

so  giht  er  bey  e-ner  anderen  thiiren  are  generally  30   inches  apart   from 

noch      1       Englischen       pfennig." —  heel    to    heel    and    from    IS    to    20 

Thomas    Platter's    Rcischcncht,    ex-  inches  wide.     Theatre  managers  tell 

tracts    df    which    are    published    by  me  they  provide  the  wider  seats  in 


52  CHILDREN  OF  THE  CHAPEL  AT  BLACKFRIARS 

Blackfriars  pit  is  seated  with  an  allowance  of  18  x  30  inches 
for  each  person.  Ample  aisle  space  is  allowed  for  handling  the 
audience.  The  Fortune  yard  was  used  only  as  standing  room. 
It  is  possible  for  average  men  to  stand  on  a  space  18  x  20  inches 
or,  by  closer  crowding,  [8  x  18  inches.  But  comfortable  space 
for  two  or  three  hours'  endurance  requires  as  much  as  24  x  24 
inches,  as  allowed. 

It  is  generally  supposed  that  the  audience  stood  on  all  three 
sides  of  the  public  theatre  stage.  Indeed  the  Red  Bull  picture 
of  1672  seems  to  indicate  this.  Such  may  have  been  the  condi- 
tion earlier  at  the  Globe,  Fortune,  and  others,  but  it  is  doubtful. 
The  entrance  to  the  first  gallery,  the  narrowest  of  the  three  gal- 
leries at  the  Fortune,1  seems  to  have  been  from  the  inside.  In 
fact  the  Van  Buchell — De  Witt  sketch  of  the  Swan  shows  this  en- 
trance in  the  passage  at  right  and  left  of  the  stage.  It  is  unlikely 
that  the  yard-crowd  was  allowed  to  block  the  passage  to  the  gen- 
tlemen's rooms,  or  to  bob  and  sweat  between  these  privileged 
places  and  the  stage. 

Contrary  to  the  common  impression  that  the  stage  was  in  the 
middle  of  the  yard,  with  the  audience  fairly  distributed  on  three 
sides  of  it,  any  sort  of  plat  is  serviceable  in  showing  that  very 
little  of  the  audience  could  have  been  at  right  and  left  of  the  stage, 
even  with  the  aisles  packed,  and  that  the  major  portion  of  it  was 
in  front  in  similar  relation  to  the  stage  as  in  the  present  day. 

On  a  conservative  and  reasonable  basis  therefore  the  Fortune, 
probably  a  little  larger  than  the  Globe,  could  accommodate  1320 
spectators,  while  the  suggestive  plat  of  Blackfriars  shows  besides 
the  habitues  of  the  stage  a  capacity  of  528,  or  a  total  of  ca.  558 
to  608. 

There  is  no  known  picture  of  Blackfriars  theatre.2 

the  more  expensive  sections  of  the  2  Professor  G.  P.  Baker  has  re- 
house. But  the  majority  of  seats  cently  published  a  picture,  which  he 
are  about  18  inches.  believes  to  be  authentic,  in  Beau- 
1The  entrance  to  the  two  upper  mont  and  Fletcher's  The  Maid's 
galleries  is  indicated  in  the  Fortune  Tragedy  and  Philaster  (ed.  A.  H. 
contract  as  from  the  outside.  It  is  Thorndike,  1906,  Belles-Lettres  im- 
probably on  account  of  the  need  ries,  ed.  G.  P.  Baker)  frontispiece; 
of  wider  rear  passageways  to  and  and  again  in  his  The  Development 
from  these  outside  entrances  that  of  Shakespeare  as  a  Dramatist 
the  two  upper  galleries  were  con-  (1907),  78.  In  the  latter  work  (p. 
structed  ten  inches  wider  than  the  44)  he  says  in  a  note,  "The  print 
lower   gallery.  seems   to   have  been   lost  sight  of, 


BLACKFRIARS  THEATRE  BUILDING  53 

The  extensive  alterations  necessary  to  convert  the  Blackfriars 
building  into  a  theatre  such  as  the  preceding  pages  show,  re- 
quired time.  The  property  was  purchased  February  4,  1596.  In 
November  following,  the  work  of  reconstruction  was  under  way. 
The  petition  to  the  Privy  Council  in  that  month  declares  the 
owner  meant  "very  shortly"  to  convert  the  building  into  a  play- 
house.1 It  is  not  likely  that  James  Burbage  finished  the  work, 
for  he  died  the  following  February,  and  the  property  came  into 
the  hands  of  his  son  Richard,  the  famous  Shakespearean  man- 
ager-actor. 

There  is  slight  probability  and  no  evidence  that  the  new  theatre 
was  occupied  prior  to  about  September,  1597. 

The  cause  of  this  delay  was  doubtless,  first,  the  expiration  of 
leases  to  tenants  before  work  could  begin ;  second,  the  death  of 
James  Burbage ;  third,  the  extent  of  the  remodeling  required ; 
fourth,  time  necessary  for  Gyles  and  Evans  to  assemble  and  train 
the  Children  after  the  enabling  royal  commission  to  Gyles  in  July, 

1597- 

It  has  generally  been  supposed  that  work  was  delayed  by  act 

of  the  Privy  Council.  This  supposition  is  based  upon  the  state- 
ment twenty-one  years  later  in  the  presumptuous  and  futile  order 
of  the  Corporation  of  the  City  of  London  to  suppress  the  Flack- 
friars.  It  is  there  stated  that  the  Privy  Council  in  response  to 
the  petition  of  November,  1596,  "then  forbad  the  use  of  the  said 
house  for  playes."2  But  I  find  upon  personal  examination  that 
the  original  Privy  Council  Registers,  preserved  at  the  Privy 
Council  Office,  Whitehall  Palace,  giving  all  the  official  acts  of 
that  body,  record  no  such  order.  It  is  certain  therefore  that  the 
statement  of  the  City  Council  in  i6i8-[iq]  is  in  error.    The  City 

but  Mr.  Gardiner  [the  owner]  and  be  most  glad  to  believe.  The  doc- 
antiquarians  to  whom  I  have  sub-  uments  show  it  differs  in  all  essen- 
mitted  it  believe  it  genuine."  tials    from    the    Blackfriars   theatre. 

I  have  not  seen  the  original,  nor  l  Supra,  17B. 

do   I   know   the  basis   of  this   con-  2  Order      for      Suppressing      the 

elusion.       The     documentary     evi-  Blackfriars    Theatre    by    the     City 

dences.  which  this  chapter  attempts  Council    "xxi°    die    Januarii     1618- 

to    assemble,    disprove    the    relative  [191" — Original     in     the    Guildhall 

proportions,  shape,  height,  roof,  &c,  Archives,    Repertory    34,    Pol. 

as    shown    in    the    picture.      I    fear  Printed     in     Ualliwell-Phillips,     op. 

therefore  that  the  print  may  not  be  cit.,  I,  311.     Cf.  supra,  175. 
so  authentic  as  I  especially  should 


54  CHILDREN  OF  THE  CHAPEL  AT  BLACKFRIARS 

was  simply  trying  to  substantiate  its  long -contended  claim,1  and 

in  doing  it,  assumed  evidence  that  did  not  exist.2 

It  may  be  noted  in  this  connection  that,  beginning  with  1597 
and  extending  to  the  close  of  Elizabeth's  reign,  the  Privy  Coun- 
cil directed  numerous  severe  orders  against  the  public  theatres, 
but  not  one  against  Blackfriars.  These  cases  will  be  considered 
in  a  subsequent  chapter.3  The  reasons  for  this  attitude  become 
clear  when  we  know  the  Queen's  relations  to  Blackfriars,  and  the 
City's  contention.4 

Whether  James  Burbage  intended  the  Blackfriars  building  thus 
altered  to  replace  "The  Theatre,"  the  lease  to  the  grounds  of 
which  was  just  expiring  in  1596,  or  whether  a  "theatrum  anglice 
Stage"  was  set  up  in  it  for  the  Children  of  the  Chapel  on  the 
Queen's  initiative,  as  the  Diary  of  the  Duke  of  Stettin  might 
seem  to  indicate,6  will  be  taken  up  in  later  paragraphs.6 

JSee   supra,   21,  161\    and  infra,  *  Infra,  126-29,  148-62. 

153-54.  'Infra,  106-7. 

2 See  infra,  1542,  1611.  ''Infra,  112,  1283-29,  151,  152. 

3 Infra,  148-62. 


CHAPTER  II 

THE  BLACKFRIARS  STAGE.— ITS  STRUCTURE,  ARRANGE- 
MENT, AND  FURNISHINGS1 


'Treatment  of  materials  in  this  chapter  reserved  for  the  complete  work. 


CHAPTER  III 

ESTABLISHMENT  OF  BLACKFRIARS  THEATRE  UNDER 
OFFICIAL  GRANTS 

The  first  and  only  lessee  of  the  Blackfriars  thus  fitted  up  for  a 
private  theatre  was  one  Henry  Evans.1  He  took  it  for  the  pur- 
pose of  exercising-  one  branch  of  the  Queen's  Children  of  the 
Chapel  in  the  acting  of  plays  under  certain  official  documentary 
assurances2  that  allowed  him  the  privilege  of  private  profit  from 
rehearsing  them  publicly. 

The  date  of  Evans's  first  contract  with  Burbage  is  difficult  if 
not  impossible  at  present  to  determine.  Certain  considerations 
indicate  a  very  early  date.  The  statement  in  the  Diary  of  the 
Duke  of  Stettin3  concerning  the  Queen's  establishing  this  theatre 
for  the  special  training  of  the  Children,  taken  in  connection  with 
the  fact  that  Evans  had  certain  official  assurances  concerning  the 
exercise  and  employment  of  these  Boys  theatrically,  suggests  a 
possible  date  prior  to  the  purchase  and  refitting.  On  the  other 
hand,  the  statement  of  the  Burbages  in  the  Globe-Blackfriars 

x"The    pleas    in    the    lawsuit    of  theatre  was  established  in  1597.     (6) 

1635    show   that   the   Burbages,   the  These  last  three  items,  as  also  that 

owners,  leased  the  Blackfriars  The-  of    the    "long    term    of   years"    are 

atre  after  its  establishment  in  1597  shown    not    by   the    1635    suit    (cf. 

for    a    long   term    of   years    to    the  pertinent    part   in    full,    infra,   571), 

master  of  the  Children  of  the  Chap-  but  in  two  suits  of  1612, — Evans  vs. 

el."— Sidney   Lee,   A    Life   of    Wil-  Kirkham  (G.-F.  210-22)   and  Kirk- 

liam    Shakespeare    (5th    ed.    1905),  ham    vs.    Painton    (G.-F.    223-51). 

209.  [Since  making  this  note  on  the  pub- 

The  above  sentence  contains  cer-  lished     documents     containing     the 

tain    errors    of    fact   overlooked   by  above  items,  I  have  discovered  sev- 

Mr.    Lee: —    (1)    The  pleas   in  the  eral    others     containing    the    same 

1635   suit   show   none  of  the   items  items, — but     not     yet     published, — 

mentioned,    and    (2)    they    do    not  those  on  the  Blackfriars  («.  s.,  36*), 

name     or     otherwise     mention     the  and    those    which    give    the    origin 

master  of  the  Children  of  the  Chap-  of  "shares"  in  London  theatres  and 

el    (Nathaniel   Gyles)   but  do  name  Shakespeare's       financial       interest 

Henry   Evans  as   lessee.      (3)    The  from    the    first    in    the    Globe    and 

Blackfriars  was  owned,  at  the  time  Blackfriars    (m.    s.,    ix-x,    34s,    4410, 

of   the   lease,   by   Richard    Burbage  451)]. 
alone   who    (4)    was   the   lessor   to  2Infra,  81-82. 

Evans    (5)    before,    not    after,    the  s Infra,  106-7. 


ESTABLISHMENT  OF   BLACKFRIARS  57 

Share-papers  of  16351  points  to  a  date  "after"  the  refitting  was 
completed.  This  no  doubt  refers  to  the  long-term  lease  of  1600, 
but  it  seems  also  inclusive  of  the  first  lease  or  tenancy  prior  to 
1600. 

From  the  documents  in  the  case  of  Evans  vs.  Kirkham,2  as 
also  from  various  documents  in  the  suit  of  Kirkham  vs.  Painton,3 
and  likewise  from  numerous  recently  discovered  documents  not 
yet  published,4  it  is  learned  that  Evans  on  Sept.  2,  1600,  leased 
the  Blackfriars  for  a  period  of  twenty-one  years,  term  to  begin 
Michaelmas, — i.  e.,  Friday,  September  29, — at  40  /.  per  year,  giv- 
ing bond  of  400  /.,  with  Alexander  Hawkins,  his  son-in-law,  as 
security,  for  payment  of  the  rentals.  But  he  had  possession  and 
was  conducting  the  theatre  long  before  this  date.  In  his  Bill  of 
Complaint  against  Kirkham,  May  5,  1612,  Evans  in  connection 
with  the  twenty-one-year  lease  of  1600,  speaks  of  the  Blackfriars 
as  "Then  or  late  in  the  tenure  or  occupation  of  your  said  orator."6 
Richard  Burbage  in  his  own  behalf  replying  to  Kirkham  in  the 
suit  of  Kirkham  vs.  Painton6  substantiates  this  fact.  In  explain- 
ing why  he  as  owner  and  lessor  exacted  a  bond  of  400  /.  as  se- 
curity for  payment  of  the  lease,  he  says  he  considered  that  "ex- 
cept the  said  Evans  could  erect  &  keepe  a  companye  of  Playinge 
boyes  or  others  to  playe  playes  &  interludes  in  the  said  Playhouse 
in  such  sort  as  before  tyme  had  bene  there  vsed,  that  he  was  lyke- 
lye  to  be  beh[ind  with]  the  said  rent  of  fortie  pounds."7 

The  words  I  have  italicized  indicate  the  theatre  had  been  in 
operation  for  some  time.  Also,  Evans  was  making  a  financial 
success  and   had  previously  met  his   payments   of   rent.      Since 

'"Now   for   the   Blackfriars,  that  *Cf.  supra,  36\ 
is  our  inheritance;  our  father  pur-           5See  document,  G.-F.,  21  h/. 
chased    it    at    extreame    rates,    and           "Tn  G.-F.,  223-51. 
made  it  into  a  playhouse  with  great           7In    G.-F.,   234a.     The   statement 
charge  and  trohle ;  which  after  was  in     the     document     just     preceding 
leased  out  to  one  Evans  that  first  this    that    "Henrye    Evans    .  .  .    in- 
sert  up  the  boyes  commonly  called  tended   then    [*.   <\,   when   lease   was 
the   Queenes   Majesties   Children   of  made]    presentlye    to    erect    or    sett 
the    Chappell." — Tn    Halliwell-Phil-  vpp     a     Companye    of    boyes     .  .  . 
lips.  Outlines  of  the  Life  of  Shake-  in  the  same"  is  of  course  made  with 
spcarc   (Oth  ed.  1890),  I,  317.  strict   legal    reference   to   the  opera- 

*See    documents    in    G.-F.,    espe-  tions  of  the  twenty-one-year  lease, 

cially  21  la.  The    lease    is    not    retroactive    and 

"See    documents    in    G.-F.,    espe-  takes  no  account  <>f  what  preceded 

cially   223r-224a,   2306,   239c~240a.  it 


58  CHILDREN  OF  THE  CHAPEL  AT  BLACKFRIARS 

Evans  and  no  one  else  was  in  possession  both  immediately  and 
for  some  time  prior  to  the  lease  of  1600,  there  seems  no  uncer- 
tainty that  he  was  in  possession  when  Ben  Jonson's  The  Case  is 
Altered  was  first  presented  there  by  the  Children  in  1597,  ca. 
Sept.— Oct.1 

We  have  no  record  of  any  earlier  play  at  the  new  theatre. 
Also,  there  are  no  other  known  documentary  statements  as  to  the 
date  of  its  first  occupancy. 

It  is  quite  possible  that  the  long-term  lease,  dated  Sept.  2,  1600, 
with  term  to  begin  at  Michaelmas,  was  taken  by  Evans  at  or  near 
the  expiration  of  his  rental  year.  If  so,  the  date  of  his  first  occu- 
pancy would  be  about  Sept.  1597, — approximately  two  to  three 
months  after  Nathaniel  Gyles  was  granted  the  royal  commission 
that  enabled  these  two  men  to  unite  in  carrying  out  the  Queen's 
purposes.2 

Nathaniel  Gyles,3  a  musician  graduated  from  Magdalen  Col- 
lege, Oxford,  was  sworn  Gentleman  of  the  Chapel  Royal  and 
Master  of  the  Children  June  9,  1597,4  three  days  after  the  death 
of  his  predecessor,  William  Hunnis.  The  appointment  was 
made    by    the    Queen    through    the    Lord    Chamberlain,5    Lord 

'See  "Plays,"  in  vol.  II,  of  com-  49  years  is  an  error  for  39,  as  above 

plete  work.  dates  show.     The  same  inscription 

"It  is  hardly  probable  that  boys  allots  him  75  years, 
could  be  taken  up  and  put  into  Between  1597  and  1626,  Gyles  was 
condition  for  singing  and  acting  the  recipient  of  at  least  nine  royal 
in  less  time.  It  is  noteworthy  here  grants.  The  chief  ones  are  con- 
that  the  Canons  of  Windsor  al-  nected  with  the  present  history  and 
lowed  to  this  same  Nathaniel  Gyles  are  printed  or  sufficiently  noticed 
in  their  Commission  of  Oct.  1,  1595,  in  the  pages  of  this  and  succeeding 
"the  space  of  three  months"  for  col-  volumes. 

lecting  a  similar  company  of  boys  4"1597.     William  Hunnis  died  the 

for  singing  and  acting.     See  infra,  6th   of   June,    Master   of 

68\  the    Children,    and    Na- 

3  Nathaniel  Gyles  (1559-1634,  Jan.  thaniell  Giles  sworne  gent 

24):      Mus.    Bac.    June    26,    1585;  and  Master  of  the  Chil- 

Mus.  Doc.  1622 ;  Master  of  the  Chil-  dren  in  his  place  the  9th 

dren  of  St.  George's  Chapel,  Wind-  of  the  same,  from  Win- 

sor,  Oct.  1,  1595,  to  Jan.  24,   1634,  sore." — The  Old  Cheque- 

and  Master  cf  the  Children  of  the  Book  or  Book  of  Remembrance  of 

Chapel  Royal  June  9,  1597,  to  Jan.  the  Chapel  Royal   (ed.  E.   F.  Rim- 

24,   1634.     The  inscription  over  his  bault,     for    The     Camden    Society, 

grave    in    the    aisle    adjoining    St.  1872),  5. 

George's   Chapel   gives  49   years   as  "1597   June. 

Master  of  St.  George's,  and  38  years  The   Right   Honorable   the  Lord 

as    Master   of   the   Children   of   his  Chamberlaine,  upon  the  9th  day  of 

Majesty's    Chapel    Royal.      But   the  June,  commanded  me,  Bartholomew 


ESTABLISHMENT  OF   BLACKFRIARS  59 

Hunsdon.1     This  is  Gyles's  first  connection  with  the  Children  of 
the  Chapel.2 

July  2,  1597,  the  Queen  issued  her  Privy  Seal  for  a  Patent  to 
Nathaniel  Gyles  as  Master  of  the  Children  and  Gentleman  of  her 
Chapel.    The  Patent  was  issued  accordingly  July  I4.a 


Mason,  Substitute  at  Greenwich,  to 
sweare  Nathaniell  Gyles  Gentleman 
of  her  Majestes  Chappell  (being  be- 
fore extraordinary),  whoe  accord- 
ingly receaved  his  oth  as  other  gen- 
tlemen before  him  hath  done,  in  the 
presence  of  us  whose  names  are 
subscribed." — Idem,  37   [fol.  24]. 

^ee  supra,  263. 

2  "The  Children  of  the  Chapel, 
who  disappeared  when  their  play- 
place  was  shut  up  early  in  1583,  are 
met  with  again  in  1581,  as  acting 
at  Croydon,  under  N.  Giles,  their 
master,  before  the  Queen." — F.  G. 
Fleay,  A  Chronicle  History  of  the 
London  Stage  (1890),  81. 

Fleay  is  mistaken  here  concern- 
ing Gyles. 

Hermann  Maas,  Die  Kindertrup- 
pen  (Diss.  Gottingen,  1901),  8,  ac- 
cepts Fleay's  error  seriously  and 
adds  a  worse  one.  He  refers  to 
John  Nichols,  Progresses,  &c.,  of 
Queen  Elizabeth,  III,  124,  227,  as 
proof  that  the  Children  of  the  Chap- 
el under  Gyles  acted  before  Eliza- 
beth at  Croydon  in  1591.  Maas 
takes  these  references  from  Fleay, 
op.  cit.,  78  (to  which  also  he  refers 
for  his  proof),  but  gives  them  as 
his  own,  although  he  had  certainly 
not  seen  Nichols's  work.  On  the 
pages  referred  to,  Nichols  deals 
with  a  different  matter, — the  pres- 
ence of  the  Queen  in  Windsor  in 
1593,  to  which  indeed  Fleay  prop- 
erly refers.  But  Maas  in  appropri- 
ating Fleay's  references  mistook 
them  as  referring  to  the  first  point 
rather  than  the  last  in  the  sentence 
in  which  Fleay  has  given  them. 

8  Both  these  documents  I  have 
found  in  the  Public  Record  Office. 
Neither  seems  ever  to  have  been 
published.  The  Privy  Seal  can  be 
reached  by  consulting  Privy  Signet 
Index,  under  July,  1597.     The  Pat- 


ent is  obtainable  under  the  index 
"Duodecima  Pars  Patentium  de 
Anno  XXXIX.     Elizabeth  Regina." 

As  in  all  such  cases,  the  Patent 
is  engrossed  from  the  Privy  Seal, 
and  is  identical  with  it  in  wording 
of  the  grant,  except  where  the  en- 
grosser has  erred  or  has  spelled 
differently.  I  quote  therefore  here 
and  in  all  similar  cases  from  the 
Privy  Seal  as  of  prior  authority. 

The  pertinent  part  of  this  docu- 
ment provides  for  the  instruction 
and  care  of  only  twelve  children, — 
a  point  of  significant  interest  in  the 
succeeding  history.  The  Privy  Seal 
(the  many  signs  of  abbreviation  ex- 
panded into  italics  however)  with 
the  customary  memorandum  (in  a 
separate  hand)  of  the  date  of  the 
Great  Seal  to  the  Letters  Patent 
follows : — 

Memorandum  quod  xiiij  die 
Julij  Anno  infra  scripto  istud 
brew  delib<?ratum  fuit  domino 
Custodi  magni  Sigilli  Angh'a* 
apud  Westmonasterium  exe- 
quendwm. 

Elizabeth  dei  gracuz  Angliae  Fran- 
ciae  et  Hibmiiae  Regina  fidei  de- 
fensor &c  Proditecto  et  fideli  Con- 
siliario  nostro  Thomae  Egerton 
militi  magni  Sigilli  nostri  Angliae 
Custodi  sa\utem  Vobis  mandamus 
quod  sub  dicto  Sigillo  nostro  vestra 
exhtente  custodia  Uttcras  nostras 
fieri  faciat  patent  in  forma  se- 
quent 

Regina  &c  Omnibus  ad  quos  &c 
Sah<?rm  Sciatis  quod  nos  de  gracm 
nostra  sp^riali  ac  ex  certa  sciencia 
et  mero  motu  nostras  dedimus  et 
concessimus  ac  per  praesentes  pro 
nobis  beredibus  el  successon&iM  noj- 
/ris  damns  et  concedimus  difcefo 
Servient  nostro  Xatlianioli  Giles 
officii! m  Magistri  puerorttifi  Capellae 


60 


CHILDREN  OF  THE  CHAPEL  AT  BLACKFRIARS 


July  3,  1597,  the  next  day  after  the  issue  of  the  Privy  Seal  for 
his  appointment  as  Master  of  the  Children  of  the  Chapel,  the 
Queen  granted  under  her  signet  a  warrant  for  a  Commission  to 
Gyles  for  taking  up  children  for  her  service.  The  patent  fol- 
lowed July  15.1 


nostrae  Regioe  heredwm  et  succes- 
sorum  nostrorum  Quodquidem  offi- 
ciu»J  WilWmws  Hunnis  iam  de- 
functw^  nuprr  haouit  et  exercuit  ac 
ratione  mortis  eiusdem  Will^/mi 
Hunnis  in  manibus  ac  disposidowe 
no^/ris  existit  Habendum*  occupan- 
dttm  et  gaudendwm  officium  pra^dic- 
tum  eidem  Nathanieli  Giles  per 
seipJMm  a  tempore  mortis  praedicti 
WillWmi  Hunnis  durante  vita  sua 
naturali  Damus  etiam  et  per  prae- 
j^ntes  pro  nobis  heredibus  et  suc- 
cessoribus  nostris  concedimus  prae- 
fato  Nathanieli  Giles  vada  siue 
feoda  quadraginta  librarian  sterling 
Percipiendo  anwuatim  a  tempore 
mortis  pra^fati  Wilte/mi  Hunnis  pro 
eruditione  duodecem  puerorww  eius- 
dem Capellae  nostrae  ac  pro  eorwm 
convenient^  exhibicione  ves^'turae 
et  lectuanz  de  thesauro  nostra  he- 
redum  et  successorum  nostrorum  ad 
Reception  Scaccarij  nostri  West- 
monasterii  per  mantis  Thesaurarw 
et  Cameram  eiusdem  pro  tempore 
existence  ad  quatfuor  Anni  termtnos 
videlicet  ad  festum  Natalis  domini 
Annunciadonis  b^atae  Mariae  vir- 
ginis  Sancti  Johannis  Baptistae  et 
sancti  Michar/is  Archangeli  equali- 
bus  pordonibw.?  solvenda  vnacum 
omnibus  et  omnimodw  alijs  vadu 
feodu  proricubus  Jurisdica'onibwj 
aucthoritate  priuilegijs  commodita- 
tibus  regards  et  advantage  quibus- 
cunque  eidem  officio  quoquo  modo 
debits  pertinent  us  siue  incumben- 
tibus  aut  impostum  debends  siue 
spectands  in  tarn  amplis  et  con- 
si  milibus  modo  et  forma  prout  Ri- 
cardus  Edwards  vel  dictts  Wilk/- 
mws  nup^r  defunctts  aut  aliquis 
alius  officium  praedictum  haouit  ex- 
ercuit vel  gauisis  fuit  haoere  exer- 
cere  vel  gaudere  debuit  Ac  insUper 
de  ampliori  grada  nostra  ac  ex  cer- 
ta  scienda  et  mero  motu  no^teis  pro 


nobis  \\eredibus  et  successon'frttJ 
nostri?,  per  praesentes  damus  et  con- 
cedimus praedicto  Nathanieli  Giles 
locum  siue  officium  illud  vnius  ge- 
ncrosorum  nostrorum  dictae  Capel- 
lae nostrae  Regiae  quod  praedictus 
WillWmMs  Hunnis  nuper  haouit  vna- 
cum  feodo  seu  annuali  redditw  tri- 
ginta  librarwm  bonae  et  legalis 
monetae  Angliae  per  Annum  Ha- 
bendmhi  tenendum  gaudendwm  et 
exercendwm  locum  siue  officium 
illud  praedictum  durante  vita  sua 
naturali  Necnon  p^rcipiendwm  dic- 
tum  vadum  siue  anwuatem  redditwm 
sibi  vel  assignors  suis  consimtli 
modo  et  forma  et  ad  tales  terminos 
in  quibus  ceteri  gen<?rosi  dictae  Cap- 
ellae nostrae  Regiae  solui  consueue- 
runt  vnacum  omnibus  alijs  commo- 
ditatibus  priuilegzs  praeeminencibus 
ac  emoluments  quibuscunqw^  eidem 
loco  siue  officio  quoquo  modo  spec- 
tantibus  siue  imposteru/n  spectandu 
Eo  quod  &c.  In  cuius  rei  &c 
Datum  nostro  sub  priuato  Sigillo 
apud  Manerium  nostrum  de  Green- 
wich secundo  die  Julij  Anno  Regni 
nostri  tricesimo  nono 

Will  Parker  [engrosser] 

The  Patent  begins  with  "Regina 
&c,"  and  continues  from  there  on 
as  a  copy  of  the  above  Privy  Seal, 
with  varied  orthography  and  abbre- 
viations however,  ending  with  the 
"In  cuius  rei  &c."  Instead  of  the 
closing  "Datum  nostro,"  &c,  of  the 
Privy  Seal,  the  Patent  closes  with 
the  attestation  and  date  of  final  is- 
sue thus : — 

Teste  Regina  apud  Westmono^- 
terium  xiiij°  die  Julij 

per  brew  de  priuato  Sigillo. 

1  Hitherto  the  only  generally  ac- 
cessible source  of  information  as  to 
the  date,  contents,  and  powers  of 
this  Commission  has  been  Henry 
Clifton's    Complaint    to    the    Queen 


ESTABLISHMENT  OF   BLACKFRIARS 


61 


So  far  as  we  know,  this  Commission  to  Gyles  is  the  earliest 
recorded  document  in  the  long  history  of  the  Children  and  their 
influences  begun  at  Blackfriars.      It  is   possibly  the   foundation 


in  the  Star  Chamber  Proceedings 
preserved  at  the  Public  Record  Of- 
fice. (Discovered  by  Mr.  James 
Greenstreet,  and  published  by  him 
in  The  Athenaeum,  Aug.  10,  1889, 
203-4.  Reprinted  in  F.  G.  Fleay, 
A  Chronicle  History  of  the  London 
Stage,  1890,  127-32.) 

The  Commission  has  never  been 
printed.  But  more  than  a  hundred 
years  ago  its  existence  was  merely 
indicated  in  Daniel  Lysons,  Envi- 
rons of  London   (1796),  I,  92. 

Both  Privy  Seal  and  Patent  I 
have  found  in  the  Public  Record 
Office.  The  former  is  enrolled  in 
Privy  Signet  Index  and  is  preserved 
in  a  bundle  of  parchments  labeled 
"Privy  Seals  1597  July."  A  further 
enrolment  is  in  State  Papers,  Do- 
mestic, Elisabeth,  Docquets,  1597-8, 
made  "quarto  die  Julij  1597," — the 
day  following  the  issue. 

My  transcript  of  the  Privy  Seal, 
dated  at  the  close  3  July,  1597,  with 
head  memorandum  of  Patent  date, 
is  as  follows  (most  signs  of  con- 
traction and  abbreviation,  however, 
expanded  into  italics)  : — 

Memorandum  quod  xvt0  die 
Julij  Anno  infra  scripto  istud 
breve  deliberatum  fuit  domino 
Custodi  magni  Sigilli  Anglian 
apud  Westmonasterium  exe- 
quendww. 

Elizabeth  by  the  grace  of  god  quene 
of  England  ffrance  &  Irland  De- 
fendor  of  the  faithe  &c.  To  or  right 
trusty  and  welbeloved  Councellor  sr 
Thomas  Egerton  knight  keeper  of 
our  greate  Seale  of  England  for  the 
tyme  being  greeting.  We  will  and 
commaunde  you  that  vnder  our  said 
great  Seale  ye  cause  or  \ettres  pat- 
ents to  be  made  forth  in  forme  fol- 
owing  Elizabeth  by  the  grace  of 
god  &c  To  all  Maio"  shirifs  bail- 
ifs  Constables,  &  all  other  or  Offi- 
cers greeting,  ffor  that  it  is  meete 
that  or  Chappell  Royall  should  be 
furnished    with    well    singing    Chil- 


dren from  tyme  to  tyme :     We  haue 
and  by  these  presents  doo  authorise 
or    welbeloved    servant    Nathaniell 
Giles  mr  of  or  Children  of  our  said 
Chappell,   or  his   Deputie   being  by 
his    bill    subscribed    and    sealed,    so 
authorised,  and  having  this  or  pres- 
ent   Comission    wth    him,    To    take 
suche  and  so  many  children  as  he, 
or  his  sufficient  Deputie  shall  thinke 
meete,    in    all    cathedrall    collegia:, 
parishe  Churches   Chappells  or  any 
other   place    or   places    aswell    w'in 
libertie    as    without    w*in    this    our 
Realme  of  England  whatsoeuer  they 
be,     And   also  at   all   tymes   neces- 
sary horses,  boates,  Barges,  Cartes, 
Carres,   and   waggens    for   the  con- 
veyance of  the  said  Children   from 
any  place,  wth  all  manner  of  neces- 
saryes  apperteyning  to  the  said  Chil- 
dren  by    lande    or    water    at    suche 
reasonable  prises,  as  by  the  discre- 
tion   of    him,    or    his    said    Deputie 
shalbe  thought  sufficient     And  also 
to   take   vpp    sufficient    lodging    for 
him   and   the   sayd    Children,   when 
they   for   our   service   shall    remove 
to   any   place   or   places.      Provided 
also,  y*  if  our  said  servant,  or  his 
Deputie,  or  Deputies  bearers  hereof 
in  his  name  cannot  forthwth  remove 
the  Childe  or  Children  when  he  by 
vertue  of  this  our  Commission  hath 
taken  him  or  them     That  then  the 
said    Childe    or    Children    shall    re- 
mayne    there    vntill    suche   tyme   as 
our   said    Servant    Nathaniell    Giles 
shall  send  for  him  or  them.     W'hcr- 
fore    we    will    and   commaunde   you 
and  eu'y^  of  you  to  whom  this  our 
Commission  shall  come,  to  be  help- 
ing ayding  and  assisting  to  the  vt- 
termost  of  your  powers,  as  you  will 
answer    at    your    vttermost    prrills. 
In  witnes  wherof  &c     Gevin  vnder 
our    Privy    Seale   at   or    Mannor   of 
Grenewich    the   thirde   day  of  July 
in   the   nyne  and   thirtieth   yeere   of 
our  Reigne. 

Will   Parker  [engrosser] 


62 


CHILDREN  OF  THE  CHAPEL  AT  BLACKFRIARS 


upon  which  this  brilliant  career  was  begun  and  is,  not  only  for 
that  reason  but  mainly  for  other  reasons  that  appear  in  the  se- 
quence, of  supreme  value  in  understanding  the  significance  of 
events. 

Upon  first  reading  and  upon  comparison  with  earlier  similar 
documents,  the  Commission  seems  an  ordinary  provision  for  the 
Queen's  Chapel  according  to  ample  precedent. 

Since  the  days  of  Richard  III  and  perhaps  even  earlier,  it  had 
been  the  custom  to  impress  men  and  boys  by  royal  authority  into 
service  as  Chapel  choristers.  Although  research  will  probably  yet 
reveal  similar  commissions  to  Henry  Abingdon,1  Gilbert  Ban- 
ester,2  or  still  earlier  Masters  of  the  Children,  at  present  the  first 
known  authorization  for  such  impressments  is  the  commission 
from  Richard  III  to  John  Melyonek,  16  September,  1484.3 


The  Patent  is  under  the  index, 
"Nona  Pars  Patentium  de  Anno 
XXXIX.  Elizabeth,"  and  is  found 
in  that  roll  on  membrane  No.  7, 
dorso.  It  was  engrossed  from  the 
above  Privy  Seal,  and  begins  ac- 
cordingly after  the  words  "in  forme 
folowing"  with  "Elizabeth,"  &c. 
The  engrosser  repeated  the  words 
"ffor  that"  after  "greeting."  Ab- 
breviations and  especially  orthogra- 
phy in  the  two  documents  differ 
widely, — a  condition  universally 
prevalent  in  the  thousands  of  such 
records.  Otherwise  the  wording  of 
the  grant  is  the  same.  The  closing 
sentence  of  the  Privy  Seal  begin- 
ning with  "Gevin"  is  replaced  in 
the  patent  by  "witnes  our  self  at 
Westminster  the  xvth  day  of  Julie 


few  omissions  and  other  changes  in 
J.  P.  Collier,  History  of  English 
Dramatic  Poetry  and  Annals  of  the 
Stage  (1831),  I,  34-35;  second  ed. 
(1879),  I,  40.  Reprinted  with  fewer 
variations  in  The  Old  Cheque-Book 
or  Book  of  Remembrance  of  the 
Chapel  Royal,  from  1561  to  1744 
(ed.  E.  F.  Rimbault  for  The  Cam- 
den Society,  1872),  vii.  Both  pub- 
lications omit  the  last  line  (the 
date)  of  the  document,  and  Rim- 
bault misdates  it  as  1485  instead  of 
1484. 

The  original  document  is  pre- 
served in  Brit.  Mus.,  Harl.  MSS. 
433,  fol.  189,  from  which  the  fol- 
lowing transcript  is  made  (with  the 
more  difficult  abbreviations,  how- 
ever, expanded  into  italics)  : — 


per  brew  de  priuato  sigillo  etc." 
'Patent,  May,  5  Edw.  IV  (1465),  MeU~-Ric  &c     To  all  &  euery  oT  sub 


"for  the  fynding,  instruction,"  &c. 
of  the  children.  Protected  by  Act 
of  Resumption  in  his  stipend  of  40  /. 
per  year,  13  Edw.  IV   (1473-74). 

2  Protected  by  Act  of  Resump- 
tion, 22  Edw.  IV.  (1482-83)  in  his 
salary  of  40  /.,  for  "the  exhibition, 
instruction,  and  governaunce  of  the 
children  of  the  chapelle." 

?  Placed  in  wrong  historical  per- 
spective and  printed  with  expanded 
and  sometimes  modernized  spell- 
ings,   inserted    punctuations,    and    a 


nek 


giettes  aswele  spzW^uell  as  tem- 
po-ell  thise  or  lettres  hering  or 
seeing  greeting  We  let  you  wite 
that  for  the  confidence  &  trust  y* 
we  haue  in  or  trusty  and  welbe- 
loued  seruant  John  Melyonek  oon 
of  ye  gentilmen  of  or  Chapell  and 
knowing  also  his  expert  habilitie 
and  connyng  in  ye  science  of  Mu- 
sique  haue  licenced  him  and  by 
thise  present68  licence  and  geue 
him  auctorite  y*  w*in  all  plac" 
in  this  or  reame  aswele  Cathedral 


ESTABLISHMENT   OF   BLACKFRIARS 


63 


It  is  not  yet  known  whether  or  not  William  Cornyshe1  and 
William  Crane2  were  likewise  empowered  by  their  respective  sov- 
ereigns Henry  VII  and  Henry  VIII.  But  sixty-six  years  after 
the  grant  to  Melyonek  by  Richard  III,  Edward  VI  employed  the 
same  means  to  the  same  ends  in  a  commission  to  Philip  Van 
Wilder.3  Two  years  later,  June,  1552,  Edward  VI  gave  another 
authorization  of  similar  nature  to  Richard  Bower,  Master  of  the 
Children  of  the  Chapel.4  Previous  commissions  had  provided  for 
the  taking  up  of  both  children  and  men  as  choristers.  But  in  the 
present  case  and  in  all  succeeding  cases,  to  the  termination  of  the 


churges    coliges    chappells    houses 
of   relegion    and    al    oyer    [other] 
franchisee!    &    exempt    places    as 
elliswhere     or     colege     roial     at 
Wyndesor  resumed  &  except  may 
take  and  sease  for  vs  and  in  or 
name    al    suche    singing    men    & 
childre   being   expart    in   the    said 
science    of    Musique    as    he    can 
finde  and  think  sufficient  and  able 
to    do    vs    smiice      Wherfor    &c 
yeuen  &c  at  Nottingham  the  xvjth 
day  of  Septembcr     A°  secundo 
A°  do  mini  1484     A°  2° 
[Richard  Ill's  reign  began  June 
26,  1483.     His  second  year  therefore 
is    June    26,    1484 — June    25,    1485. 
Hence  Sept.  16,  2  R'ic.  Ill,  is  Sept. 
16,   1484,  not  1485   as  Rimbault    (w. 
s.)  has  it.     Richard  III  died  22  Au- 
gust, 1485.] 

"William  Cornyshe  (Cornish)  is 
first  heard  of  as  Master  of  the  Chil- 
dren in  1493,  in  Henry  VII's  Privy 
Purse   Expenses. 

:The  date  of  William  Crane's 
succession  is  not  known.  He  is  first 
heard  of  as  Master  of  the  Children 
of  the  Chapel  in  1526,  in  the  House- 
hold Book  of  Henry  VIII. 

3 The  patent  is  to  Philip  Van 
Wilder,  Gentleman  of  the  Privy 
Chamber,  Feb.,  1550,  and  empowers 
him  "in  anie  churches  or  chappells 
within  England  to  take  to  the 
King's  use,  such  and  as  many  sing- 
ing children  and  choristers,  as  he 
or  his  deputy  should  think  good." — 
The  Old  Cheque-Book  (m.  s.),  viii. 
4J.  P.  Collier,  op.  cit.  (18311),  I, 
142;    (18792),  I,   140s,  notes  the  is- 


suance of  this  warrant  of  authority, 
with  acknowledgements  to  Strype, 
Eccl.  Mem.,  II,  839,  which  I  cannot 
verify.  But  John  Strype,  Ecclesias- 
tical Memorials  (1822),  II,  ii,  285, 
quotes  under  erroneous  date  of 
June,  1551,  from  King  Edward  VI's 
Book  of  Warrants. 

I  have  not  yet  found  either  Privy 
Seal    or   Patent.      But    I    quote   the 
following    from    the    original    MS. 
record : — 
"June 

vj°E  vj  A  commission  to  Rich- 
[1552]  ard    Gowre    Mr    of    the 

Comision     Children  of  the  K.  Chap- 
pie to  take  vp  from  tyme 
to    tyme    as    many   chil- 
dren    to     serve     in    his 
sayde      chappie     as     he 
shall       thinke       mete. — 
Brit.   Mus.,  MS.  Reg.    (18.  c.   24.), 
fol.   232,  entitled  "The  Note  to  all 
the    Bills   signed   by  the   King  and 
Councel  from  Oct.   19,  4  Edw.  VI. 
to  the  7  Edw.  VI." 

The  name  here  is  distinctly  writ- 
ten "Gowre."  But  in  the  Latin  pat- 
ent to  him  by  Elizabeth,  13  April, 
1559,  as  printed  in  Thomas  Rvmcr, 
Foedera  (1713),  XV,  517,  "it  is 
"Bower."  It  is  likewise  "Richard 
Rowre"  in  the  Latin  Patent  to 
Bower  as  Master  of  the  Children 
of  the  Chapel,  28  April,  1547,  in 
the  Public  Record  Office.  Patent 
Rolls,  1  Edw.  VI,  Part  9.  Never 
yet  printed.  His  salary  is  fixed  at 
40  /.  per  year. 

See  also  infra.  64T. 


64 


CHILDREN  OF  THE  CHAPEL  AT  BLACKFRIARS 


practice,  except  the  one  of  1559- [60]  next  noticed,  only  children 
were  to  be  impressed.1  In  Elizabeth's  second  regnal  year,  she 
issued  a  Privy  Seal  prohibiting  the  taking  of  singing  men  and 
boys  from  Windsor,  Paul's,  or  the  Chapel  Royal,  but  empowering 
the  bearer,  not  named,  to  take  such  from  any  other  chapel.2  It  is 
not  known  what  this  special  provision  was  made  for,  but  it  seems 
quite  certainly  a  commission  to  the  master  of  the  children  at 
Windsor  for  supplying  vacancies,  and  not  for  the  Chapel  Royal. 
In  1562  the  1552  commission  to  Bower  is  reported  to  have  been 
renewed  by  Elizabeth,  authorizing  him  "to  take  up  well  singing 
boys,  for  furnishing  the  Queen's  Chapel."3  I  have  not  been  able 
to  find  this  commission,  and  I  suspect  the  report  is  not  true ;  for 
Bower  died  26  July,  1561,4  and  Richard  Edwards  was  appointed 
to  the  office  the  same  year.5  Chalmers  in  reporting  this  has  either 
confused  it  with  the  commission  to  Richard  Edwards  of  Dec.  4, 
1561,6  or  overlooked  the  natural  chronology  of  a  document  that 
fell  between  the  date  of  Elizabeth's  reappointment  of  Bower,  30 
April,  1559,  five  months  after  the  beginning  of  her  reign,7  and  the 
date  of  his  death,  26  July,  1561.  In  either  case  there  is  a  mis- 
dating. 


1  There  was  little  further  need 
for  impressment  of  men-choristers ; 
for  so  many  wanted  the  position  of 
Gentleman  of  the  Chapel  that  there 
seem  sometimes,  during  the  reign 
of  Elizabeth  and  of  James  I.,  to 
have  been  more  gentlemen  extraor- 
dinary,— that  is,  applicants  in  line 
for  promotion  to  active  service  as 
choristers, — than  gentlemen  ordi- 
nary. See  The  Old  Cheque-Book 
(u.  s.)  62ff.,  passim,  particularly 
the  strict  regulations  of  the  chapter 
against  using  influence  on  the  Lord 
Chamberlain  in  securing  such  ap- 
pointments, idem.,  64,  under  date 
Dec.  2,  1592. 

2  The  Privy  Seal  dates  8  March, 
1559-[60].  It  closes  thus:  "and  we 
give  power  to  the  bearer  of  this  to 
take  any  singing  men  and  boys 
from  any  chapel,  our  own  house- 
hold and  St.  Paul's  only  excepted." 
— Printed  in  full  in  John  Nichols, 
The  Progresses  and  Public  Proces- 
sions  of   Queen   Elisabeth    (second 


ed.  1823),  I,  81,  from  Ashmolean 
MSS.  1113  (Bodl.  Lib.)  ;  also  in 
J.  P.  Collier,  op.  cit.  (1879),  I,  170. 

zCf.  George  Chalmers,  An  Apol- 
ogy for  the  Believers  in  the  Shake- 
speare  Papers    (1797),   359. 

*Cf.  The  Old  Cheque-Book  («. 
s.),   Notes. 

5  Infra,  651. 

"Infra,  ibid. 

7  Officers  of  Edward  VI  or  of 
Queen  Mary  holding  over  under 
Elizabeth  had  their  authority  val- 
idated by  reappointment.  Accord- 
ingly a  new  patent  was  granted  to 
Richard  Bower  as  Master  of  the 
Children  of  the  Chapel,  dated  "xxx 
Aprilis"  in  1  Eliz.  (1559).  This 
document  provides  for  instruction 
and  keep  of  twelve  boys,  for  which 
Bower  is  allowed  40  /.  per  year, — 
just  the  same  as  earlier  given  to 
him,  Abingdon,  Banester,  and  other 
masters  of  the  children,  and  later 
to  his  successors,  Edwards,  Hunnis, 
and  Gyles.     The  latter  part  of  the 


ESTABLISHMENT  OF   BLACKFRIARS 


65 


Very  soon  after  the  death  of  Richard  Bower,  Elizabeth  empow- 
ered his  successor,  Richard  Edwards,  with  a  commission  for  tak- 
ing up  children  under  date  of  4  Dec,  1561.  This  document  served 
as  a  model  for  the  later  commissions  to  Hunnis  and  Gyles.  All 
three  are  almost  identical.  As  the  commission  to  Edwards  throws 
much  light  upon  the  present  history  by  its  identity  in  purport  and 
near  likeness  in  wording,  and  has  never  before  been  published,  it 
is  here  subjoined.1 


patent  specifies  that  these  condi- 
tions and  the  powers  granted  are 
all  as  formerly  enjoyed  by  the  same 
Bower  under  Henry  VIII,  Edward 
VI,  and  Mary.— Public  Record  Of- 
fice, Patent  Rolls,  1  Elizabeth,  Part 
9,  membrane  5. 

See  also  supra,  63\ 

lI  have  found  both  the  Pi  ivy 
Seal  and  the  Patent  of  this  com- 
mission in  the  Public  Record  Office, 
and  publish,  as  usual  in  such  cases, 
from  my  transcript  of  the  Privy 
Seal  as  of  prior  authority  over  the 
engrossed  Patent.  The  Privy  Seal 
bears  date  4  Dec,  1561,  and  the 
execution   10  Jan.   next  succeeding. 

Memoranditm  quod  x°  die  Jan- 
uarii  Anno  infra  scripto  istud 
brew  delib<?rat«w  fuit  domino 
Custodi  magni  Sigilli  apud 
Westmonasterium    exequendwm 

Elizabeth  by  the  grace  of  god 
Quene  of  England  fraunce  &  Ire- 
land defend1  of  the  faythe  &c.  To 
or  right  welbeloued  &  faythfull 
Counsaylo1-  Sr  nicholas  Bacon 
knight  keper  of  or  great  Seale  of 
Englande,  commaundinge  yo™  that 
vnder  or  great  Seale  aforsayd  ye 
cause  to  be  made  or  lettres  patent88 
in  forme  followinge.  To  all  Mayo" 
sherifs  baylief"  constables  &  all 
other  or  officers  gretinge.  For  that 
it  is  mete  that  or  chappell  Royall 
should  be  furnysshed  wth  well  sing- 
ing children  from  tyme  to  tyme  we 
have  &  by  these  present*"  do  au- 
thorise or  welbeloued  s^rvaunt  Rich- 
ard Edward"  mr  of  or  children  of 
or  sayd  chappell  or  his  deputie  be- 
inge  by  his  bill  subscribed  &  sealed 
so    authorised,    &    havinge    this    or 


presente  comyssion  wth  hym  to  take 
as  manye  well  singinge  Children  as 
he  or  his  sufficient  deputie  shall 
thinke  mete  in  all  Chathedrall  & 
Collegiate  Churches  aswell  wthin 
libertie  as  wthout  w^in  this  or 
Realme  of  England  whatsoever 
they  be  And  also  at  tymes  neces- 
sarie,  horses,  boat**,  barge",  Cart** 
&  carres,  as  he  for  the  conveyaunce 
of  the  sayd  Children  from  any  place 
to  or  sayd  chappell  Royall.  wth  all 
maner  of  necessaries  app^rteynyng 
to  the  sayd  Children  aswell  by  lande 
as  water  at  or  prices  ordynarye  to 
be  redely  payed  when  they  for  or 
service  shall  remove  to  any  place 
or  placcs  provided  also  that  if  or 
sayd  Servaunt  or  his  deputie  or 
deputies  bearers  hereof  in  his  name 
cannot  forthwth  Remove  the  chyld 
or  children  when  he  by  virtue  of 
this  or  Commyssyon  hathe  taken 
hym  or  them  that  then  the  sayd 
child  or  children  shall  remayne 
there  vntill  suche  tyme  as  or  sayd 
Servaunt  Rychard  Edward6"  shall 
send  for  him  or  them  Wherfore 
we  will  &  comwaunde  yo"  &  everie 
of  you  to  whom  this  or  Comyssion 
shall  come  to  be  helpinge  aydinge 
&  assistinge  to  the  vttermost  of 
yor  powers  as  ye  will  answer  at 
yorvttermoste  pcryW*.  In  Wytnes 
wherof  &c.  Geven  vnder  or  privie 
Seale  at  or  Manor  of  St  James  the 
fourthe  daye  of  Decembre  in  the 
fourthe  yere  of  or  Raigne. 

R.  Jones  [engrosser  of 
Patent.  Name  written  in  same  ink  as  the 
memorandum  at  top]. 

The  Patent  is  found  in  the  Pub- 
lic Record  Office,  Patent  Rolls,  4 
Eliz.,   Part  6,  Membrane  14,  dorso. 


66 


CHILDREN  OF  THE  CHAPEL  AT  BLACKFRIARS 


Immediately  after  the  death  of  Edwards  the  last  of  October, 
1566,  William  Hunnis  was  appointed  in  his  place  as  Master  of  the 
Children  of  the  Chapel.  Within  six  months  thereafter,  nameiy 
in  April,  1567,  Hunnis  was  in  like  manner  commissioned  to  take 
up  children.  This  commission  is  modeled  upon  the  preceding  one 
to  Edwards,  with  additions  of  a  few  words  and  one  new  provision 
as  to  lodging  the  children.  Thirty  years  later  the  Hunnis  com- 
mission became  in  turn  itself  the  model  from  which  the  commis- 
sion to  Gyles,  already  quoted,1  was  copied  word  for  word. 

The  use  later  made  of  the  commission  to  Gyles,  as  dealt  with  in 
succeeding  pages  of  the  present  history,  raises  into  peculiar  im- 
portance the  precedent  commission  to  Edwards  and  especially 
this  commission  to  William  Hunnis.2 


The  wording  of  the  grant  part  of 
the  Privy  Seal  is  copied  in  the  pat- 
ent as  is  usual,  with  varied  orthog- 
raphy, however,  and  the  direction 
to  the  Keeper  of  the  Great  Seal  is 
of  course  omitted  in  the  Patent. 
The  last  sentence  beginning  "In 
witnes"  is  replaced  in  the  Patent 
by  the  date  of  its  issue,  "In  wittnese 
&c  yeoven  the  tenth  daye  of  Janu- 
ary 

per  brew  de  priuato  Sigillo  &c." 

1  Supra,  60\ 

2 1  have  found  both  Privy  Seal 
and  Patent  of  Hunnis's  commission 
in  the  Public  Record  Office,  and 
publish,  as  in  all  similar  cases,  from 
the  Privy  Seal,  as  of  prior  author- 
ity over  the  Patent  engrossed  from 
it. 

The  Privy  Seal  and  patent  were 
executed  by  the  Queen  in  person. 
Hence  the  omission  of  the  usual 
introductory  paragraph  of  the  Privy 
Seal  to  the  Keeper  of  the  Great 
Seal,  and  the  substitution  at  close 
of  the  Patent  of  "per  ipsam  Regi- 
nam"  in  place  of  the  customary 
authority  "per  breve  de  priuato 
Sigillo."  The  Privy  Seal  bears 
Elizabeth's  signature  near  the  top 
of  the  parchment  in  her  usual  tall, 
strong,  individualized  separate 
characters. 

The  customary  date-line  at 
close  of  the  Privy  Seal  is  omitted. 
But    the    execution    is    recorded    as 


18  April,  1567. 

Memorandum  quod  xviij°  die 
Aprilis  Anno  Regni  Reginae 
E:  nono  ista  billa  dliberata  fuit 
Domino  Custodi  magni  Sigilli 
apud  Westmonasterium  exe- 
quendo. 

Elizabeth    Si   [signature] 

Elizabeth  by  the  grace  of  god  &c 
To  all  maiors  Sheriffes  Bayliffes 
Constables  and  all  other  or  officers 
greatinge  For  that  it  iss  mete  that 
oure  Chappell  Royall  shulde  be  fur- 
nysshed  with  well  singynge  Chyl- 
derne  from  tyme  to  tyme,  We 
Have  and  by  these  presence  do  auc- 
thorice  or  welbeloued  servaunte 
Wilh'am  Hunnys  master  of  or  Chil- 
derne  of  or  saide  Chappell  or  His 
deputie  beinge  by  His  bill  sub- 
scribed and  sealed  so  aucthorised, 
and  Havinge  this  or  presente  com- 
wyssion  wth  Hym,  To  take  suche  & 
asmany  Childrne  as  He  or  His  suf- 
ficiente  deputie  shall  thinke  mete  in 
all  Cathedrall  Collegiate  parishe 
Churches  Chappells  or  any  other 
place  or  places  aswell  wthin  Libertie 
as  wthout  wtbin  this  or  Realme  of 
Englande  whatsoever  they  be  and 
also  at  all  tymes  necessary  Horses 
Boeates  barges  Cartes  Carres  and 
waggens  for  the  conveyaunce  of  the 
saide  Childerne  from  any  place,  wth 
all  maner  of  Necessaries  appertayn- 
ynge    to    the    saide    Childerne,    by 


ESTABLISHMENT  OF   BLACKFRIARS 


67 


The  practice  of  impressment  was  not  confined  to  supplying  the 
Chapel  Royal.  April  26,  1585,  Queen  Elizabeth  granted  to  one 
Thomas  Gyles,1  Master  of  the  Children  of  Paul's,  a  warrant  under 
her  signet,  for  the  taking  up  of  children  to  be  used  in  her  service 
whenever  she  mieht  call  for  them.2 


Lande  or  water  at  such  Reasonable 
prises  as  by  the  discretion  of  hym 
or  his  saide  deputie  shalbe  thought 
sufficiente  and  also  to  take  vpp  suf- 
ficient Lodgynge  for  hym  &  the 
saide  Childerne  when  they  for  or 
service  shall  Remove  to  any  place 
or  places  Prouided  also  that  if  oT 
saide  Servaunte  or  his  deputie  or 
deputies  bearers  Hereof  in  His 
name  cannot  forth wth  Remove  the 
Childe  or  Childerne  when  He  by 
vertu  of  this  or  comyssion  Hath 
taken  hym  or  them,  That  then  the 
saide  childe  or  Childerne  shall  re- 
mayne  there  vntill  suche  tyme  as  or 
saide  servaunte  wilh'am  Hunnys 
shall  sende  for  Hym  or  them 
Wherefore  we  will  and  comwaunde 
you  and  every  of  you  to  whome  this 
or  comwyssion  shall  come  to  be 
Helpinge  aydinge  and  assistinge  to 
the  vttermoste  of  yor  powers  as  you 
will  answere  at  yor  vttermoste  pr- 
ills    In  witnesse  whereof  &c 

The  Patent  may  be  found  in  the 
Public  Record  Office  in  Patent 
Rolls,  9  Eliz.,  Part  10,  Mem.  19 
(16),  dorso.  With  the  exception 
of  orthography,  it  is  an  exact  copy 
of  the  Privy  Seal.  At  the  close 
after  "In  witnesse  whereof  &c"  is 
added  simply,  "Witnes  our  self  at 
Westminster  the  xviijth  daye  of 
Aprill 

per   ipjam    Reginam   &c." 

1  In  no  way  connected  with  Na- 
thaniel Gyles  of  the  Chapel  Royal 
and    Black  friars   theatre. 

3  This  document  is  printed  in  full 
in  J.  P.  Collier,  op.  cit.,  (1S311),  T, 
265;  (1879*),  I,  258-59,  but  mis- 
dated by  him  as  1586.  It  is  also 
misdated  as  1584  by  A.  Albrecht. 
Das  Englisehe  Kmdertheater  (Diss. 
Halle,  1SS3),  31.  with  reference  to 
Tohn  Nichols.  The  Progresses,  &c, 
of  Queen   Elizabeth   (1823'),  II,  432, 


where  Nichols  erroneously  prints 
"26th"  for  "27th"  in  the  last  line 
of  the  document,  giving  the  year. 
Reprinted,  with  correct  date,  in  The 
English  Drama  and  Stage  (ed.  Haz- 
litt,  Roxburghe  Library,  1869),  33- 
34.  Hazlitt  was  unable  to  find  the 
original  document  in  the  Public 
Record  Office.  The  reason  is,  it  is 
in  the  British  Museum,  Sloane 
MS.  2035fr,  fol.  73  {Album  of 
George  Willingham,  1 585-1650), 
from  which  I  offer  the  following 
transcript  as  an  accurate  copy. 

At  the  top,  below  the  words  "By 
the  Queene,"  Elizabeth  has  placed 
her  signature  with  her  usual  tall, 
clear,  sharply  individualized  sepa- 
rate letters. 

By  the   Queene. 

Elizabeth  \$A\ 

Whereas  we  haue  authorysed  our 
servaunte  Thomas  Gyles  Mr  of  the 
children  of  the  Cathedrall  Churche 
of  St  Pauls  within  our  Cittie  of 
London  to  take  vpp  suche  apte  and 
meete  Children  as  are  most  fitt  to 
be  instructed  and  framed  in  the 
arte  and  science  of  musicke  and 
singinge  as  may  be  had  and  founde 
out  within  anie  place  of  this  our 
Realme  of  England  or  Wales,  to 
be  by  his  education  and  bringinge 
vp  made  meete  and  hable  to  serve 
vs  in  that  behalf  when  our  pleasure 
is  to  call  for  them.  Wee  therefore 
by  the  tenor  of  these  present'"  will 
and  require  you  that  ye  permit!  and 
suffer  from  henceforthe  our  saide 
servaunte  Thomas  Gyles  and  his 
deputie  or  deputies  and  every  of 
them  to  take  vp  in  anye  Cathedral 
or  Collegiate  Churche  or  Churches 
and  in  everye  other  place  or  places 
of  this  our  Realme  of  England  ami 
Wales,  suche  Childe  and  Children 
as  he  or  they  or  anye  of  them  shall 


68 


CHILDREN  OF  THE  CHAPEL  AT  BLACKFRIARS 


In  1595  she  issued  a  similar  commission  it  seems  to  Nathaniel 
Gyles,  then  Master  of  the  Children  of  St.  Georges  Chapel  at 
Windsor.1 

These  precedents  all  provided  for  the  taking  up  of  children  for 
singing.  But  the  Chapel  Children  had  been  employed  in  dramatic 
representations  apparently  as  early  as  Edward  IV,2  and  possibly 

George's  Chapel,  Windsor,  by  deed 
dated  1  Oct.  1595,  nominate  Na- 
thaniel Gyles,  B.  M.  to  be  Clerk  in 
the  Chapel,  and  one  of  the  players 
on  the  organs  there,  and  also  to  be 
master,  instructor,  tutor,  and  crean- 
sor,  or  governor,  of  the  ten  chor- 
isters, agreeing  to  give  him  an  an- 
nuity of  81  /.  6  s.  8  d.  and  a 
dwelling-house  within  the  Castle, 
called  the  Old  Commons,  wherein 
John  Mundie  did  lately  inhabit, 
with  all  appertenances,  as  one  Rich- 
ard Farrante  enjoyed  the  same. 
The  stipend  to  be  paid  monthly  by 
the  treasurer,  over  and  besides  all 
other  gifts,  rewards,  or  benevo- 
lence that  may  be  given  to  the  chor- 
isters for  singing  of  ballads,  plays, 
or  the  like :  also  such  reasonable 
leave  of  absence  as  the  statutes  al- 
low, except  when  Her  Majesty  shall 
be  resident,  or  an  installation  or 
funeral  of  any  noble  person  shall 
be  solemnized :  on  condition  that 
the  said  Nathaniel  Gyles  shall  pro- 
cure meet  and  apt  choristers  within 
the  space  of  three  months  after 
avoidance  (Her  Majesty's  Commis- 
sion for  the  taking  of  children  be- 
ing allowed  unto  him),  and  that 
he  shall  find  them  sufficient  meat 
and  drink,  apparel,  bedding  and 
lodging  at  his  own  costes  within 
the  New  Commons  lately  appointed 
for  them ;  and  that  he  shall  find  a 
sufficient  deputy  during  the  time  of 
sickness  and  absence." — Bodl.  Lib., 
Ashmolean  MSS.,  No.  1125-33; 
printed  in  The  Old  Cheque-Book 
(u.  s.,  62s),  198. 

2  This  statement  has  no  surer 
foundation  than  the  known  dra- 
matic activity  of  the  Master  of  the 
Children,  Gilbert  Banester,  author 
of  The  Miracle  of  St.  Thomas,  and 
the  possible  use  of  the  Boys  by  him 


finde  and  like  of  and  the  same 
Childe  and  Children  by  vertue  here- 
of for  the  vse  and  service  afoure- 
saide,  with  them  or  anye  of  them 
to  bringe  awaye,  withoute  anye  yor 
lettes  contradicdons  staye  or  inter- 
ruptions to  the  contrarie  Charginge 
and  commaundinge  you  and  everie 
of  you  to  be  aydinge  helpinge  and 
assisting  vnto  the  aboue  named 
Thomas  Gyles  and  his  deputie  and 
deputies  in  and  aboute  the  due  ex- 
ecudon  of  the  premisses  for  the 
more  spedie  effectuall  &  bettar  ac- 
complisshing  thereof  from  tyme  to 
tyme  as  you  and  everie  of  you  doe 
tendar  our  will  and  pleasure  and 
will  aunswere  for  doinge  the  con- 
trarye  at  yor  perilles  Youen  vnder 
our  Signet  at  our  Manor  of  Grene- 
wich  the  26th  Day  of  Aprill  in  the 
27th  yere  of  our  reign. 

To  all  and  singules   Deanes, 
Provostes,  Maisters  and  War- 
dens of  Collegies  and  all  Ec- 
clesiasticall  persons  and  myn- 
isters    and    to    all    other    or 
officers    mynisters    and    sub- 
iectes  to  whome  in  this  case 
it    shall    apperteyne    and    to 
everye  of  them  greetinge 
1This  document  has  not  yet  been 
discovered.     But  from  the  reference 
to   it    in    the    Appointment    of    Na- 
thaniel Gyles  by  the  Dean  and  Can- 
ons of  St.  George,  coupled  with  the 
fact  that  Gyles  served  at  Windsor 
accordingly     for     thirty-nine     years 
(cf.    supra,   583),    it   was    doubtless 
granted. 

The  Appointment  of  the  Dean 
and  Canons  of  St.  George  is  a  rare 
document  in  that  it  recognizes  the 
acting-function  of  the  choir-chil- 
dren. It  also  throws  a  side-light 
on  the  present  history. 

"The    Dean    and    Canons    of    St. 


ESTABLISHMENT   OF   BLACKFRIARS 


69 


even  earlier.  Certainly  they  were  used  as  actors  within  seven 
years  of  our  first  known  notice  concerning-  Banester's  connection 
with  them.1  Henry  VII  employed  them  at  the  Christmas  festiv- 
ities of  1490  in  a  pageant  of  pantomime  and  song,2  and  apparently 
at  other  times  during  his  reign  in  pageant  presentations.3  Henry 
VIII  frequently  employed  them  in  the  presentation  of  plays,4  as 
did  also  Edward  VI.5     The  boys  taken  up  for  Paul's,  Windsor, 


in  acting.  See  J.  P.  Collier,  op. 
tit.,  T,  33;  *I,  40;  Thomas  Warton, 
op.  cit.,  Ill,  132. 

1  Supra,  62";  infra,  692. 

2  See  Brit.  Mus.,  Harl.  MS.  No. 
69,  under  "The  tenth  Chapter  of 
the  disportes,"  &c,  fol.  34&.  It  is 
there  declared  that  the  boys,  dressed 
as  mermaids  in  this  song  and  pan- 
tomime, were  the  Children  of  the 
Chapel.  All  eight  were  used, — the 
full  number  at  that  time  kept. 

On  use  of  the  Men  of  the  Chapel 
as  actors  at  this  period,  see  extracts 
from  the  Household  Book  of  Henry 
VII  in  J.  P.  Collier,  op.  cit.,  % 
44ff;   2I,   50ff. 

sThis  conclusion  is  based  solely 
on  the  preceding  evidence  and  the 
fact  that  the  Household  Book  of 
Henry  VII  (u.  s.,  692),  shows  pay- 
ments for  these  pageants  to  Wil- 
liam Cornish,  then  Master  of  the 
Children,    successor    to    Banester. 

*  See  extracts  from  The  Kynges 
Boke  of  payments  during  the  first 
twelve  years  of  Henry  VIII,  in  Col- 
lier, op.  cit.  (1879),  I,  76-79,  from 
which  are  taken  the  first  four  no- 
tices here  quoted : — 

8  H.  VIII.— Jan.  4.  To  Mr.  Cor- 
nisshe  and  the  children  of  the  chap- 
ell  that  played  affore  the  king,  6/. 
13  J.   4  d. 

10  H.  VIII.— Jan.  2.  To  Mr. 
Cornishe,  for  playing  affore  the 
king  open  newyeres  day  at  nyght 
with  the  children  of  the  kings  chap- 
ell,  6/.   13  J.  Ad. 

^  11  H.  VIII.— Jan.  6.  To  Mr. 
Cornisshe,  for  playing  afore  the 
king  this  Cristemas  with  his  chil- 
dren,  6/.   13.*.   Ad. 

12  H.  VIII— Jan.  6.  To  master 
Cornisshe  for  his  play,  6  /.  13  s.  4  d. 


The  following  additional  notices 
indicate  Henry  VIII  employed  the 
Children  extensively  as  actors 
throughout  his  reign: — 

The  Interlud  was  callyd  the 
tryumpe  of  Love  and  Bewte,  and 
yt  was  wryten  and  presentyd  by 
Mayster  Cornyshe  and  oothers  of 
the  Chappell  of  our  soverayne  lord 
the  Kyng,  and  the  chyldern  of  the 
sayd  Chapell,  &c. — From  a  roll  of 
the  items  of  the  Revels,  Christmas, 
1514-[15],  in  Collier,  op.  cit.,  I,  69. 

Item,  to  Maister  Crane,  for  play- 
ing before  the  King  with  the  Chil- 
dren   of    the    Chapell,    in    rewarde 

xiij"    vj"    viijd 

— From  the  Household  Book  of 
Henry  VIII,  in  the  Trevelyan  Pa- 
pers (ed.  Collier,  for  The  Camden 
Society,  1857),  146.  Under  date  of 
New  Year's  day,  1529. 

Item,  to  Mr.  Crane  for  playing  be- 
fore the  King  with  the  Children  of 
the  Chappell,  in  reward  vj"  xiij"  iiiji 
— Idem,  161.  Under  date  of  New 
Year's  day,  1530. 

Item  to  Mr  Crane,  for  playing 
before  the  Kinges  grace,  with  the 
childerne  of  the  Kinges  chapell... 

vj"    xiij*    iiijd 

— Idem,  174.  Under  date  of  New 
Year's  day,  1531. 

30  Henry  VIII.— Dec.  30.  Itm 
to  the  children  of  the  chapell  by 
way  of  the  King's  rewarde,  6  /.  13  5. 
4d.— J.  P.  Collier,  op.  cit.,  I.  116, 
from  the  King's  Books  of  Payments. 

31  Henry  VIII.— Jan.  1.  Itm  to 
Mr.  Crane,  for  playing  before  the 
King  with  the  children,  6  /.  13  s.  4  d. 
— Idem,  117. 

5  Item,  to  Richard  Bowre,  for 
playing  before   the   King's   majestie 


70  CHILDREN  OF  THE  CHAPEL  AT  BLACKFRIARS 

and  the  Chapel  Royal  had  under  Elizabeth  likewise  often  been 
used  in  play-acting,  although  this  function  was  not  specified  in  the 
commissions.1    It  accorded  however  with  the  Queen's  pleasure. 

The  above  comparative  view  of  the  commission  to  Gyles  and  its 
precedents  shows  that  the  commission  to  Gyles,  out  of  which  arises 
much  of  the  history  of  the  Children  of  the  Chapel  at  Blackfriars, 
instead  of  being  peculiar  in  its  provisions  differs  in  no  essential 
features  from  its  immediate  precedents,  and  is  even  word  for 
word  identical  with  the  commission  to  Hunnis.  Whether  the 
commission  to  Hunnis  or  the  model  of  it  to  Edwards  was  read 
two  ways  or  not,  each  at  least  could  have  been  if  occasion  had 
arisen.  The  only  difference  between  these  precedents  and  the 
commission  to  Gyles  seems  to  be  that  under  Gyles's  regime  occa- 
sion did  arise,  and  his  commission  consequently  was  given  in 
practice  a  double  interpretation. 

The  commission  to  Gyles  can  be  read  and  was  read  two  ways, 
each  with  perfect  consistency.  Henry  Clifton  in  his  complaint 
to  the  Queen,  as  we  shall  see,  read  it  in  the  strictest  sense  as  a 
direct  provision  for  supplying  the  Chapel  with  choristers.  Gyles 
read  it  thus,  and  also  very  differently.  We  are  forced  to  con- 
clude from  events  that  the  Queen  and  her  Court  of  Star  Chamber 

with  the  Children  of  the  Chappell,  biecht,   Das   Englische   Kinderthea- 

in  rewarde vj"  xiij8  iiijd  ter    (Diss.    Halle,    1883),    makes    a 

— From  the  Household  Book  of  Ed-  very     brief     presentation.       F.     G. 

ward    VI,    1547-[48],    in    The    Tre-  Fleay,  A   Chronicle  History  of  the 

velyan  Papers  (ed.  Collier,  for  The  London    Stage,    &c.    (1890),    gives 

Camden  Society,  1857),  201.  a    superficial    general    view,    and    is 

Item   to   Richard   Bower,    Mr   of  followed    by    Hermann    Maas,    Die 

the   Children   of  the   Kinges    Chap-  Ktndertruppen      (Diss.      Gottingen, 

pell,  for  playinge  before  the  Kinges  J,?,01).  »"  a  *ew  sketchy  paragraphs. 

Majestie    with    the    saied    Children  Tl\e  ^  widens  with  investigation 

•a   xjj:s   jjjjd  and   includes,   besides   the   Children 

—From   The  Kinges' Booke  of  Re-  of  the  Chapel    Windsor  choir    and 

ceyptes     and     Paymcntes,     in     The  Paul  s  boys   also  several  schools  for 

Trevelyan  Papers    (ed.   Collier,   for  boys -as     Westminster,     Merchant 

The  Camden  Society,  1863),  II,  20.  Taylors     Oxford     Eton,    &c.      Not 

Under    date    of    New    Year's    day,  all    of    these    of    course    provided 

1547-T481  Court-entertainments,  but  they  were 

Examples  of  this  practice  under  "sed  at  le*s*  m  Private  theatricals. 

Elizabeth  prior  to  her  action  in  es-  No  thorough  treatment  has  ever  yet 

tablishing     the     Children     of     the  been  made-     The  field,  though  not 

Chapel    at    Blackfriars   in   1597   are  richly  promising,  awaits  an  mvesti- 

too    voluminous    to    quote    in    the  gator.     Certain  pertinent  materials, 

present  small  work.     J.   P.   Collier,  old   and   new,    will   be   included    in 

op.    cit.    (18311,    18792),    I,    passim,  my  succeeding  complete  work, 
assembled  some   materials.     A.   Al- 


ESTABLISHMENT  OF   BLACKFRIARS  71 

agreed  with  Gyles's  interpretation,  and  that  he  read  it  thus  in 
carrying  out  the  Queen's  wish. 

In  this  sense  the  commission  required  Gyles  to  provide  children 
for  the  Chapel,  but  allowed  him  wide  liberty.  He  could  take  up 
as  many  children  as  he  pleased,  although  the  Latin  patent  issued 
just  the  day  before  specifically  provided  that  he  should  be  re- 
quired to  instruct  but  twelve  for  the  Chapel  Royal.  He  could 
remove  them  whither  he  would,  if  he  could  not  at  once  make  use 
of  them  at  the  Chapel,  and  could  board  them  and  lodge  them  at 
the  royal  expense.  He  might  remove  them  to  the  Chapel  when 
he  thought  them  suitable  for  use  there.  There  was  no  compul- 
sion for  his  ever  taking  them  thither.  The  disposition  of  the 
children  was  left  wholly  within  the  discretion  of  Gyles. 

This  wide  liberty  was  used  as  follows :  Gyles  or  his  deputy 
took  up  numerous  children,  and  delivered  them  to  Henry  Evans 
at  the  Blackfriars  theatre.  Here  they  were  boarded  and  lodged 
by  Evans  at  the  royal  charge.  They  were  taught  singing,  play- 
acting, dancing,  and  other  arts,  besides  grammar-school  subjects. 
For  this  purpose,  "the  Scholehouse"  at  the  theatre  was  used  and 
certain  tmisici  and  praeceptores  employed.  The  children  acted 
plays  publicly  at  least  once  a  week.  Their  performances  were 
attended  by  nobles,  members  of  the  Court,  and  the  Queen  herself. 

The  following  pages  furnish  the  evidence  of  these  conditions, 
and  show  that  this  liberal  interpretation  of  the  commission  was 
not  only  in  accordance  with  the  Queen's  knowledge,  but  was  the 
carrying  out  of  her  will. 

These  powers  to  Gyles  were  supplemented  by  official  conces- 
sions to  Henry  Evans  that  enabled  him  to  rent  the  Blackfriars 
theatre  and  train  the  Queen's  Children  of  the  Chapel  there,  with 
remunerative  privileges.  The  documentary  proof  of  this  is  con- 
nected with  events  occurring  four  years  later,  and  is  therefore 
taken  up  in  subsequent  pages.1 

Whether  the  concessions  to  Evans  bore  earlier  or  later  date 
than  the  Commission  to  Gyles  cannot  yet  be  determined.  The 
testimony  of  Clifton's  Complaint  to  the  Queen2  indicates  the  the- 
atre was  established  solely  on  the  basis  of  the  latter.  But  Clifton 
is  making  out  a  case  against  this  commission,  and.  whether  he 

1  Infra,  81-82.  ' Infra,  73ff.,  77ff. 


72  CHILDREN  OF  THE  CHAPEL  AT  BLACKFRIARS 

knew  of  them  or  not,  does  not  mention  any  documents  to  Evans. 
We  are  compelled  to  be  satisfied  for  the  present  with  knowing 
that  it  was  under  these  unusual  powers  to  Gyles  and  special  grants 
to  Evans  that  the  two  men  united  in  1 597. — Evans  providing  the 
theatre,  and  Gyles  supplying  it  with  children-actors.  Although 
Gyles  is  not  known  in  the  management,  it  is  possible  that  at  least 
for  a  time  he  had  some  share  in  the  profits ;  for  on  May  31,  1601, 
he  was  paid  15  /.  for  the  two  Court-performances  of  January  and 
February  of  that  year.1 

'See    Plays    at    Court,    complete  work,  vol.  II. 


CHAPTER  IV 

ACTORS  AND  SINGERS.— THE  TWO  FUNCTIONAL  DIVISIONS 
OF  THE  CHILDREN 

There  were  two  sets  of  the  Children  of  the  Chapel  from  1597 
to  the  death  of  Elizabeth  in  1603,  all  maintained  at  the  royal 
charge,  and  all  intended  primarily  or  ultimately  for  the  Queen's 
service.     Of  this  condition  there  is  ample  evidence. 

From  the  earliest  history  of  the  Chapel  Royal,  the  children 
had  been  lodged  and  boarded  in  or  near  the  palace,  in  close  con- 
nection with  the  Chapel.1  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  twelve 
boys  provided  for  in  the  Latin  Patent  to  Gyles2  were  still  thus 
maintained.  The  allowance  of  40  /.  to  Gyles  is  a  provision  for 
this  maintenance  and  is  based  specifically  upon  the  same  provi- 
sion to  his  predecessors,  William  Hunnis  and  Richard  Edwards.8 
With  this  set  of  children  we  have  here  nothing  further  to  do. 

The  boys  who  acted  were  maintained  at  Blackfriars  under 
Evans.  The  liberal  interpretation  which  the  Queen  allowed  to 
be  put  upon  the  English  Commission,  as  already  noticed,  shows 
this  condition  fully  provided  for.  Clifton  in  his  Complaint  to  the 
Queen  says  it  was  at  Blackfriars  that  his  son  was  "delivered  & 
committed"  by  Gyles  and  his  deputy  James  Robinson  "vnto  the 
custody  of  the  sayd  Henry  Evans,"4  and  that  he  was  "as  a  pris- 
oner committed  to  the  said  playe  howse  amongste  a  companie  of 
lewde    &    dissolute    mercenary    players."5     The    Complaint    was 

'See  The  Old  Cheque-Book   (ed.  the    various    documents    quoted    or 

E.    F.    Rimbault,    for    The   Camden  referred  to  in  chapter  III,  was  the 

Society,  1872),  iii ;  also  for  various  sum  allowed  to  each  of  the  known 

accounts  of  expense  for  their  keep,  Masters    of    the    Children    of    the 

J.    P.    Collier,    History    of   English  Chapel   from  Edward   IV  to  James 

Dramatic  Poetry  and  Annals  of  the  I, — namely,    Henrv    Abingdon,    Gil- 

Stage    (18311),   L   20ff;    (18792),    I,  bert     Banester,     William     Cornish, 

37ff.     Also  see  Sir  John  Hawkins,  William     Crane,     Richard     Bower, 

A    General   History   of   the  Science  Richard  Edwards.  William  Hunnis, 

and    Practice    of   Music    (new    ed.,  Nathaniel   Gyles. 

1853),  I,  272,  358.  *  Athenaeum  (  10  Aug.,  1889), 

3  Supra,  59'.  G.-F,  131. 

'This  amount,  40/.,  as  shown  by  "Athenaeum,  ibid.;  G.-F.,  130a. 


74  CHILDREN  OF  THE  CHAPEL  AT  BLACKFRIARS 

made  primarily  to  stop  this  use  and  maintenance  of  the  Queen's 
Children,  and  is  therefore  full  of  information  to  the  same  effect. 
Specific  quotations  may  be  seen  under  later  headings.1  The  dec- 
laration of  Evans's  Answer  in  the  suit  of  Kirkham  vs.  Painton 
concerning  "the  dietting  and  ordering  of  the  Boyes  vsed  about 
the  plaies  there"2  is  further  evidence  of  the  fact.  The  Diary  of 
the  Duke  of  Stettin3  accords  with  these  established  data,  and 
adds  definite  statements  as  to  maintenance  of  the  Children  at 
Blackfriars  by  the  Queen,  provisions  for  instruction,  &c.  "The 
Scholehouse"  at  the  theatre,  the  room  above  it  fitted  up  for  the 
boys  "to  dine  &  sup  in,"  and  the  newly  built  apartments  above 
the  Great  Hall,  where  the  boys  probably  lodged,  show  the  mate- 
rial provisions  for  these  conditions. 

Whether  Gyles  ultimately  took  to  the  Chapel  Royal  any  of 
these  lads  who  proved  good  singers,  or  whether  he  may  occa- 
sionally have  used  some  of  the  twelve  Chapel  singers  in  the 
special  music  programmes  at  Blackfriars,  there  is  no  present  evi- 
dence to  show.  Although  he  had  ample  power,  there  was  prob- 
ably no  occasion  for  doing  the  latter.  He  may  have  done  the 
former  in  carrying  out  the  provisions  for  supplying  the  Chapel ; 
for  the  Blackfriars  was,  at  least  ostensibly  by  the  commission,  a 
sort  of  preparatory  school  to  the  Chapel  Royal.  From  the  names 
of  the  Boys  known  to  us.  and  from  Clifton's  Complaint,  it  seems 
the  provision  may  have  been  "more  honour'd  in  the  breach,  then 
the  obseruance."4 

It  is  with  the  Blackfriars  division  of  the  Chapel  Children  that 
this  history  is  concerned.  They  are  important  in  themselves,  and 
also  as  the  source  from  which  the  several  later  Children  of  the 
Revels  companies  spring. 

The  division  of  the  Children  dates  from  the  Latin  Patent  and 
English  Commission  to  Gyles,  and  is  based  upon  the  double  func- 
tion of  singing  and  acting  previously  performed  by  one  body  of 
Chapel  Boys.  In  this  functional  division  of  the  Children  lies  the 
source  of  the  ultimate  segregation  of  the  two  bodies  under 
James  I.5 

The  number  of  Boys  at  Blackfriars  under  Elizabeth  cannot 

1  Infra,  78\  79-82,  10l\  1132,  126,  "Infra,  106-7. 

3  59.  'Hamlet  (1623  folio),  I,  iii,  257a. 

2  Infra,  98.  s Infra,  vol.  I,  part  ii. 


ACTORS  AND  SINGERS 


75 


have  been  less  than  twenty-five,  and  most  probably  reached  thirty. 
Some  of  their  plays  show  twenty  characters  on  the  stage  at  once, 
while  other  requirements  in  certain  cases  increase  this  number. 
All  their  plays  have  from  twenty  to  thirty  roles.  It  seems  rea- 
sonable of  course  that  certain  minor  parts  in  all  these  were 
doubled,  or  given  to  substitutes.  But  even  then  it  is  impossible 
to  get  below  twenty,  with  the  probabilities  as  more  nearly  twenty- 
five  as  a  minimum. 

1  subjoin  a  list  of  the  undoubted  plays  of  the  Children  of  the 
Chapel  at  Blackfriars  showing  these  and  other1  data  in  a  general 
way.2 

From  Clifton's  Complaint  and  from  Ben  Jonson's  1616  folio 
we  know  the  names  of  fourteen  of  the  boys  taken  up  from  1597 

1The  dates  of  the  various  plays  time.  The  evidences  are  solid  and 
and  their  consequent  chronological  in  most  cases  final.  See  vol.  II 
order   are   here  given    for  the   first       under  "Plays." 

2  Compare  this  list  with   the   list  under  James  I,  infra,  vol.  I,  part  ii. 


NO.  CHARAC- 
TERS IN  PLAY 


NO.  ACTORS 

REQUIRED 

ON  STAGE  AT 

ONE  TIME 


The  Case  is  Altered  (ca.  Sept.— Oct.,  1597) 

Cynthia's  Revels  (ca.  Apl.,  1600) 

Sir  Giles  Goosecap  (ca.  fall,  1600) 

Poetaster  (ca.  Apl.,  1601) 

The  Gentleman  Usher  (ca.  sum.,  1601) 


Monsieur  D 'Olive  (ca.  Oct. — Dec,  1601) 

May  Dav  (ca,  May,  1602) 

The  IViddowt-s  Teares  (Sept.  18,  1602)  . . 
The  Dutch  Courtezan  (fall — wint.,  1602). 

The  Malcontent  (spring,  1603) 


25  +  servants 

23 

19+musicians 
25  +  "lictors, 
equites,  etc.," 
and  "maids." 
31  + 


24 

21  + 
23 

18  +  pages(3) 
gentlemen 
servants, 
maskers,  con- 
stables (3), 
officers. 
21 


15+  servants 
(V,  iv.) 
20  (V,  ii.) 
15   (V,  ii.) 
18  +  lictors 
(IV,  iii.) 

22  or    more 
(counting  two 
each   for 
"Pages,"  "At- 
tendants," 
and  "others.") 
(V.iii.) 
11  (V.  ii.) 
16+   (V.) 
18  +   (V,  v.) 
11  +   "hal- 
berds" and 
"officers"   (V, 
iii.) 


80  (V,  iii.) 


76 


CHILDREN  OF  THE  CHAPEL  AT  BLACKFRIARS 


to  1601.  As  young  Thomas  Clifton  did  not  act,  we  can  count  but 
thirteen  known  members.  But  Clifton  does  not  pretend  to  name 
all,1  and  Jonson  names  only  the  principal  actors  in  Cynthia's 
Revels2  and  Poetaster.3 

All  the  boys  here  named,  as  well  as  those  not  named,  were  at 
the  time  of  their  impressment  probably  from  nine  to  thirteen 
years  of  age.4 


JThe  list  given  by  Clifton  (cf. 
infra,  801)  :  John  Chappell,  John 
Motteram,  Nathan  ffield,  Alvery 
Trussell,  Phillipp  Pykman,  Thomas 
Salmon     Pavey,    Thomas 


principall       Comoedians 


Grymes, 
Clifton. 

'"The 
were, 

Nat.  Field.    *|    (  Ioh.  Vnderwood. 

Sal.  Pavy.      V  \  Rob.    Baxter. 

Tho.  Day.      J    Uoh.  Frost." 
— The   Works  of  Beniamin  Jonson 
(1616). 

8 In  the  Poetaster  list  {idem), 
Baxter  and  Frost  are  replaced  re- 
spectively   by    "Wil.     Ostler"    and 


"Tho.   Marton."     The  rest  are  the 
same. 

*This  is  the  usual  age  of  boy- 
choristers.  Clifton  gives  the  age 
of  his  son  as  about  thirteen  at  the 
time  of  impressment  in  1600.  Field 
(1587-1633)  was  then  thirteen. 
Underwood,  Ostler,  and  the  boys 
mentioned  by  Clifton  as  taken  up 
from  the  various  Grammar-schools 
and  apprenticeships  were  also  prob- 
ably ten  or  over  at  taking  up.  Jon- 
son's  tender  epigram  on  Sal.  Pavy, 
who  died  apparently  soon  after  act- 
ing in  Poetaster,  indicates  he  must 
have  been  near  the  age  of  his  fel- 
lows. 


CHAPTER  V 

STAR  CHAMBER  PROCEEDINGS  AGAINST  THE  USE  OF  THE 
CHILDREN  OF  THE  CHAPEL  AS  ACTORS 

For  about  three  years  (i  597-1600)  the  Children  of  the  Chapel 
at  Blackfriars,  with  Henry  Evans  as  theatrical  proprietor  and 
master  in  play-acting  and  Nathaniel  Gyles  as  master  in  music, 
presented  plays  and  music  entertainments  without  hindrance.  But 
possibly  the  need  for  boys  of  particular  excellence  as  actors  and 
certainly  the  confidence  of  unquestioned  security  of  privileges  led 
to  an  overreaching  of  authority  in  impressing  lads  against  pa- 
rental wishes.  Had  Evans,  who  seems  mainly  at  fault,  conducted 
himself  more  circumspectly  in  this  matter,  it  is  likely  we  should 
lack  one  of  our  valuable  sources  of  information  as  to  this  chil- 
dren's company,  their  theatre  the  Blackfriars,  and  how  it  was 
established  and  managed. 

In  1600  this  indiscretion  of  impressment  on  the  part  of  the 
management  led  to  a  complaint  to  the  Queen,1  which  was  later 
acted  upon  by  her  Court  of  Star  Chamber.  On  December  13, 
1600,2  James  Robinson,  acting  as  deputy  under  the  Commission 

Preserved  in  the  Public  Record  although  pardoned,  had  not  been 
Office,  Star  Chamber  Proceedings,  received  into  favor."  [Sic!] 
Elizabeth,  Bundle  C46,  No.  39,  The  statement,  put  always  in 
Clifton  vs.  Robinson  and  others.  connection  with  a  calendar  date,  is 
Discovered  by  James  Greenstreet,  merely  a  definite  dating  event  in 
and  published  by  him  in  The  Ath-  her  Majesty's  reign  to  show  the 
enaeum  (10  Aug.,  1889),  203-4.  Re-  offense  charged  is  not  barred  from 
printed  from  Greenstreet's  tran-  trial,  since  it  followed  the  last  gen- 
script  in  F.  G.  Fleay,  A  Chronicle  eral  pardon, — which  in  this  case  is 
History  of  the  London  Stage  not  true.  The  same  or  similar  ex- 
(1890),  127-32.  pression  is  used  often  in  legal  doc- 

1  Three    times    in    his    petition    to  uments    of  the    time.      See    for   ex- 

the  Queen   Clifton   says  in  connec-  ample    this    dater    in    the    suit   con- 

tion  with  this  date  "since  your  Ma-  cerning  the  removal  of  the  timbers 

jesty's    last    free    and    general    par-  of  "The  Theatre"   (Dec.   1598 — Jan. 

don."     Fleay   (op.  cit.,  124c)   found  1599)  for  use  in  building  the  Globe 

material  in  this  to  explain  why  the  "about  the  eight  and  twentyth  daye 

Children  of  the  Chapel  did  not  play  of  December  in  the  one  and  fortyth 

at  court  till  1601, — that  is,  he  says,  yeere  of  your  Highnes  raygne.  and 

Gyles  had  offended  the  Queen  "and  sythence  your  highnes  last  and  gen- 


78 


CHILDREN  OF  THE  CHAPEL  AT  BLACKFRIARS 


to  Gyles,  impressed  and  carried  off  to  the  theatre  young  Thomas 
Clifton,  son  and  sole  heir  of  Henry  Clifton,  a  gentleman  of  some 
importance  from  Norfolk,  who  was  temporarily  residing  in  Lon- 
don to  educate  his  boy  at  a  grammar-school  in  Christ  Church. 
Mr.  Clifton  complains  that  on  the  above  date  Robinson  waylaid 
his  son  on  the  way  to  school  and  carried  him  off  by  violence.1 
Even  in  the  presence  of  the  father,  who  had  at  once  come  to  take 
his  son  away,  and  in  defiance  of  him  or  any  other  nobleman  whose 
sons  they  claimed  a  right  to  take  at  will,  the  boy  was  turned  over 
to  Evans,  given  a  scroll  of  paper  containing  parts  of  a  play  to 
learn,  and  commanded  with  threats  to  set  about  his  task.2 

Failing  to  secure  his  son,  Clifton  immediately  appealed  to  Sir 
John  Fortescue,3  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer  and  member  of  the 
Privy   Council,4   probably   a   personal   friend.     Upon    Sir  John 


erall  pardon." — Court  of  Requests 
Proceedings,  Elisabeth,  Bundle  87, 
No.  74,  Burbage  vs.  Alleyn,  Bill  of 
Complaint.  In  Public  Record  Of- 
fice. See  extracts  in  J.  O.  Halli- 
well-Phillips,  Outlines  of  the  Life 
of  Shakespeare  (9th  ed.  1890),  I, 
360. 

In  lieu  of  a  fixed  statute  of  lim- 
itations, it  was  customary  for  the 
sovereign  at  irregular  intervals  fixed 
at  will  to  wipe  out  all  offenses  ex- 
cept the  graver  ones  of  treason, 
murder,  &c,  by  a  general  pardon. 
By  such  pardon,  action  against  any 
one  who  had  previously  committed 
any  of  the  offenses  it  covered  was 
forever  barred.  But  this  had  noth- 
ing to  do  with  future  offenses. 
Hence  the  declaration  in  actions  in 
court  that  the  offense  charged  was 
committed  "since"  the  last  general 
pardon,  to  show  that  action  is  not 
barred. 

In  the  latter  half  of  Elizabeth's 
sovereignty,  not  to  go  farther  back, 
such  pardons  were  issued  in  the 
following  years  of  her  reign : — 23, 
27,  29,  31,  35,  39,  43.  James  I  is- 
sued general  pardons  in  only  three 
years  of  his  reign,  3,  7,  21. — See 
Statutes  of  the  Realm,  "General 
Pardon,"  under  the  various  years 
indicated. 

The  case  of  Burbage  vs.   Alleyn 


concerning  the  Theatre  and  Globe 
(«.  s.)  refers  to  the  act  by  which 
all  offenses  before  4  Aug.  39  Eliz. 
(1597),  except  treason,  murder,  &c, 
were  pardoned.  Similar  cases  can 
be  cited  by  the  hundreds. 

But  the  case  of  Clifton  is  pecu- 
liar in  its  reference.  The  offense 
charged  was  committed  13  Dec, 
1600,  the  year  before  the  Queen's 
act  pardoning  offenses  committed 
prior  to  7  Aug.  43  Eliz.  (1601). 
This  pardon  by  right  debarred  ac- 
tion. Yet  the  complaint  was  filed 
over  four  months  after  the  pardon, 
i.  e.,  Dec.  15,  1601,  with  the  declar- 
ation three  times  that  the  offense 
of  Dec.  13,  1600,  was  committed 
"since"  this  last  pardon.  Just  why 
this  false  statement  is  made  is  not 
clear. 

1U  .  .  .  the  said  James  Robinson 
.  .  .  the  sayd  Thomas  Clifton  vrth 
greate  force  &  vyolence  did  seise 
&  surprise,  &  him  wth  lyke  force  & 
vyolence  did,  to  the  greate  terror 
&  hurte  of  him  the  sayd  Thomas 
Clifton,  hall,  pull,  dragge  &  carry 
awaye  to  the  said  playe  howse  in 
the  blacke  fryeres  aforesayd,"  &c. — 
Athenaeum  (10  Aug.  1889),  204; 
G.-F.,  129. 

2 Athenaeum,  ibid.;  G.-F.,  131. 

3 Ibid. 

*Cf.   Public  Record  Office,  State 


STAR  CHAMBER  PROCEEDINGS  79 

Fortescue's  peremptory  order,  the  boy  was  released  within  twenty- 
four  hours  after  seizure. 

Nothing-  further  seems  to  have  been  done  in  the  case  of  these 
violent  proceedings  until  about  a  year  later  1  Mr.  Clifton,  nurs- 
ing his  hurt  and  collecting  evidences  of  seven  other  seizures2  to- 
gether with  important  information  as  to  how  the  Commission  to 
Gyles  was  being  interpreted  in  practice,  then  laid  before  her  Maj- 
esty a  Bill  of  Complaint.  He  recites  in  detail  all  the  circum- 
stances and  conditions  of  the  seizure  of  his  son,  along  with  facts, 
implications,  and  erroneous  statements  touching  the  history  of 
the  organization  under  ''Gyles,  Evans,  Robinson  and  others."  It 
is  later  made  even  more  baldly  evident  than  here  appears  that  he 
wanted  not  merely  to  punish  the  offenders  for  the  injury  that  still 
rankled,  but  mainly  to  suppress  the  Blackfriars  theatre.3  The  Bill 
shows  not  a  little  animus,  and  very  strong  puritanical  opposition 
to  plays  and  playhouses.  Hence  its  statements,  though  touching 
vital  facts,  must  be  considered  with  caution.  Some  of  them  are 
substantiated  by  evidences  in  later  pages,  while  others  prove  ut- 
terly false. 

Clifton  aims  chiefly  to  show  in  his  Complaint  that  the  Commis- 
sion to  Gyles  was  procured  simply  as  a  blind  to  secure  apparent 
royal  endorsement  of  a  base  and  wicked  practice ;  that  in  fact 
"the  said  Nathaniell  Gyles,  confederating  himself  with  one  James 
Robinson,  Henry  Evans  and  others4  ...  by  cullour  of  your 
maties  said  letters  patents  &  the  trust  by  your  highnes  thereby  to 
him  the  said  Nathaniell  Gyles  committed  .  .  .  they  the  said 
confederates  devysed,  conspired  &  concluded,  for  theire  owne 
corrupte  gayne  and  lucre,  to  errecte,  sett  vpp,  furnish  and  mayn- 
teyne  a  play  house  or  place  in  the  Blackfryers."6 

To  substantiate  this  charge  of  abuse  of  authority  and  trust. 

Papers   of   1600-lfiOl,   passim;   also,  find  later   (98-101)    includes  prima- 

Acts   of    the    Privy   Council,    1600-  rily  the  Yeoman  of  the  Revels.  F.d. 

i6ot    (ed.   Dasent.   1906).  Kirkham,    who    as    official    of    the 

1  Clifton  dates  the  impressment  of  Queen    furnished    the    stage-apparel 

his  son  as  Dec.  13,  ifioo,  "about  one  for   the    Children,    and    made    large 

yere  last  past.  &   since  your  ma""  weekly     "disbursements"     for     their 

last  free  &  generall  pardon." — G.-F.,  maintenance    at    Blackfriars.      It    is 

129a.  possibly    intended    to    include   other 

"Infra.  80\  officials.      But    this    rc-mains    yet    to 

'Fnfiii.    1 59.  be  worked  out. 

'This    general    word   "others"   we  'G.-R,    127;   infra.    101". 


80 


CHILDREN  OF  THE  CHAPEL  AT  BLACKFRIARS 


Clifton  cites  other  specific  cases  of  seizure,  and  declares  that  the 
boys  so  taken  could  not  sing  and  were  not  taught  to  sing.1  This 
may  be  true  of  the  particular  boys  or  not.  But  as  applying  to 
the  whole  set  of  boys  it  is,  as  we  shall  see  later,  false.  He  de- 
clares also  that  the  boys  mentioned  as  well  as  those  not  named 
were  taken  up  "against  the  wills  of  the  said  children,  their  par- 
ents, tutours,  masters  &  governours.2 — Which  seems  wholly 
unlikely.3 

Other  evidences  to  be  examined  later  both  in  Clifton's  own 
Complaint  and  in  other  sources  only  add  to  the  proof  that  the 
general  conduct  of  the  theatre  was  in  accordance  with  and  not 
contrary  to  authority,  as  Clifton  would  here  show.  It  is,  how- 
ever, true  that  from  the  time  Evans  enters  as  a  factor  in  the  career 
of  the  Children  of  the  Chapel,  a  large  actuating  spirit  is  private 
gain-getting.4  Clifton  has  grounds  for  his  charge  that  the  Boys 
were  used  "to  the  mercinary  gayne  &  pryvat  comoditie  of  them 
the  said  Nathaniell  Gyles,  Henry  Evans,  James  Robinson,  &  other 
theire  said  confederates,"5  if  we  temper  the  animus  out  of  his 


1Amongste  wch  nombers,  soe  by 
the  persons  aforesaid  &  theire 
agents  soe  vniustlie  taken,  vsed  & 
employed,  they  have  vnduly  taken 
&  soe  employed  one  John  Chappell, 
a  gramer  schole  scholler  of  one  Mr 
Spykes  schole  neere  Criplegate, 
London;  John  Motteram,  a  gramer 
scholler  in  the  free  schole  at  West- 
mister;  Nathan  ffield,  a  scholler  of 
a  gramer  schole  in  London,  kepte 
by  one  Mr  Monkaster ;  Alvery  Trus- 
sell,  an  apprentice  to  one  Thomas 
Gyles ;  one  Phillip  Pykman  and 
Thomas  Grymes,  apprentices  to 
Richard  and  Georg  Chambers ;  Sal- 
mon Pavey,  apprentice  to  one 
Peerce ;  being  childeren  noe  way 
able  or  fitt  for  singing,  nor  by  anie 
the  sayd  confederates  endevoured  to 
be  taught  to  singe,  but  by  them 
the  sayd  confederates  abusively  em- 
ployed, as  aforesayd,  only  in  playes 
&  enterludes. — Athenaeum  (10  Aug. 
1889),   203-4;   G.-R,  128. 

2  Ibid. 

3 1  have  recently  found  a  contract 
between  the  Blackfriars  manage- 
ment under  James  I  and  the  mother 


of  a  certain  boy  for  his  employment 
there  as  an  actor,  in  which  it  is  de- 
clared that  the  employment  is 
agreed  to  upon  the  frequent  and 
earnest  solicitation  of  the  mother. 
(Published  in  full  in  vol.  Ill  of 
complete  work.)  This  was  for 
mere  acting.  When  to  that  was 
added  also  the  honor  of  chorister, 
at  least  by  name  if  not  in  practice, 
in  the  Chapel  Royal,  it  may  be 
doubted  whether  all  parents  felt 
such  antipathy  to  having  their  chil- 
dren at  Blackfriars  during  those 
brilliant  years  at  the  close  of  the 
reign  of  Elizabeth,  as  Clifton  here 
declares. 

4  The  Burbages,  father  and  sons, 
Henslowe,  and  Alleyn  were  illus- 
trious examples  of  commercial  suc- 
cesses in  managing  companies  and 
theatres.  Such  sudden  and  easy 
wealth  may  easily  explain  in  a 
measure  the  present  venture  and 
the  spirit  in  it  so  far  as  Evans  the 
lessee  and  manager  of  the  theatre 
is  concerned. 

5 Athenaeum  (10  Aug.  1889)  203; 
G.-F.,   127. 


STAR  CHAMBER  PROCEEDINGS  81 

words.  In  his  notion  of  "conspiracy,"  "confederacy,"  "corrupt 
gayne  and  lucre,"  &c,  his  animus  leads  him  to  overstate  his  case. 
He  substantiates  the  point  of  private  profit  by  showing  that  in 
reply  to  his  remonstrance  concerning  the  forcible  taking  and  de- 
taining his  son  to  "be  employed  in  that  vyle  &  base  manner  of  a 
mercynary  player  in  that  place,  &  in  noe  other  sorte  or  manner,"1 
these  men  "did  then  &  there  vse  theis  speeches,  that  were  yt  not 
for  the  benefitt  they  made  by  the  sayd  play  howse,  whoe  would, 
should  serve  the  Chappell  wtb  children,  for  them."2 

In  spite  of  the  coloring  Clifton  wishes  to  give  this  declaration, 
it  is  clear  that  it  is  simply  a  plain  business  statement  to  the  effect 
that  so  far  as  using  the  children  for  private  profit  was  concerned, 
they  had  ample  authority.  Incidentally  also  the  statement  indi- 
cates that  the  Blackfriars  Boys  were  taken  up  to  be  prepared  for 
the  Chapel,  and  that  as  a  reward  these  private  advantages  were 
allowed.  So  far  as  private  profit  was  made  in  accordance  with 
the  authority  granted  and  privileges  allowed,  it  was  legitimate. 
Cause  for  royal  displeasure  and  the  Court's  severity  in  acting 
upon  Clifton's  Complaint  lay  elsewhere. 

The  case  was  acted  upon  by  the  Queen's  Court  of  Star  Cham- 
ber. Unfortunately  the  records  among  which  this  decree  was 
filed  seem  long  ago  to  have  perished.3  Our  sole  knowledge  of 
the  nature  of  the  decision  is  in  Edward  Kirkham's  Replication 
in  his  suit  in  Chancery  against  Painton,  1612.4  It  seems  based 
wholly  upon  Clifton's  showing  of  forcible  impressment  against 
parental  wish,  and  fell  solely  upon  Evans. 

It  is  likely  that  Kirkham's  attorney,  Stephen  Price,  had  the 
decree  before  him  as  he  wrote;  for  after  stating  the  main  points 
in  it,  he  refers  the  court  to  the  document  for  the  particulars  in 
verification.  From  this  we  learn  that  "the  said  Evans  in  or  about 
the  three  and  ffortieth  yeare  of  the  raigne  of  the  late  Queen  Eliz- 
abeth was  censured  by  the  right  honorable  Courte  of  Starr-Cham- 
ber for  his  vnorderlie  carriage  and  behauiour  in  takinge  vp  of 

'Athenaeum  (u.  s.)  204;  G.-F.,  Bird,  Assistant  Keeper  of  the  Pub- 
lic Records  and  Secretary  of  the 
'Ibid.  Public  Record  Office,  Guide  to  the 

8"Nonc  of  the  Orders  or  Decrees      Public  Records  (2nd  ed   1896),   L98. 

of  this   Court    [Star   Chamber]    are  *G.-F.,   248c;    infra,   8] 

known    to    exist." — S.    R.    Scargill- 


82  CHILDREN  OF  THE  CHAPEL  AT  BLACKFRIARS 

gentlemen's  childeren  against  theire  wills  and  to  ymploy  them  for 
players,  and  for  other  misdemeanors  in  the  said  Decree  conteyned 
and  ffurther  that  all  assureances  made  to  the  said  Evans  con- 
cerninge  the  said  house  or  playes  or  Interludes  should  be  vtterlye 
voyde,  and  to  be  deliuered  vpp  to  be  cancelled  as  by  the  said  De- 
cree more  at  large  it  doth  and  may  appeare."1 

This  decree  was  rendered  simply  upon  the  presentation  of  the 
side  of  the  prosecution.  No  'Bill  of  Answer,"  "Replication"  or 
"Rejoinder"  was  apparently  allowed.2  Had  there  been,  we  should 
expect  to  find  these  additional  records  filed  with  the  Bill  of  Com- 
plaint, as  is  the  custom  in  such  cases  in  most  English  courts  of 
the  period. 

Although  Clifton  declared  that  not  only  his  boy  but  all  the 
other  seven  he  names  as  well  as  those  not  named  were  unwill- 
ingly, forcibly,  and  "vniustlie  taken,  vsed  &  employed,"3  it  seems 
quite  likely  that  if  it  had  not  been  for  Court-influence,  possibly 
through  Sir  John  Fortescue,  in  enforcing  the  really  minor  claim 
of  personal  injury  to  Clifton's  feelings,  the  case  might  not  have 
been  entertained.  For  the  decree  by  no  means  accomplished  what 
he  aimed  at,  the  suppression  of  Blackfriars  theatre,  and  fell  only 
upon  the  chief  offender  against  him. 

This  conclusion  is  strengthened  by  the  fact  that  the  decree  was 
based  wholly  upon  "the  taking  up  of  gentlemen's  children," — a 
statement  which,  so  far  as  can  be  determined,  fits  only  Clifton's 
case.4  It  is  further  strengthened  by  the  fierce  satire  in  act  V, 
scene  v,  of  Chapman's  The  Widow's  Tears  (September,  1602). 
This  is  the  first  known  new  play  that  could  have  been  wholly 
composed  and  written  after  the  decision,  and  is  bitter  in  its  attack 
upon  one-sided  justice,  in  which  neither  "replications"  nor  "re- 
joinders" are  allowed,  and  only  two  persons  are  heard  in  the  case, 
with  judgment  rendered  "at  first  sight,"  &c.5  It  cannot  be  de- 
clared with  the  certainty  of  documentary  statement  that  the  satire 
was  meant  for  this  case.  But  as  we  have  documentary  evidence 
that  The  Widozv's  Tears  containing  this  satire  was  acted  in  Sep- 
tember, 1602,  it  is  difficult  to  see  how  the  Blackfriars  audience 

*G.-F.,   248c.  *Cf.  supra,  80s;  infra,  1802,   180". 

2Cf.  infra,  825,  86-871.  5See    further    under    "Plays"    in 

8 Athenaeum     (10     Aug.,  1889),      vol.  II  of  forthcoming  work. 
205;    G.-F.,   128. 


STAR  CHAMBER  PROCEEDINGS  83 

familiar  with  the  status  and  conduct  of  that  theatre  could  have 
been  prevented  in  the  fifth  act  from  thinking  of  the  Star  Chamber 
case  thus  recently  aimed  at  their  playhouse. 

The  effect  of  the  decree  was  to  inhibit  the  Blackfriars  under 
Evans's  management,  absolutely  prohibiting  his  use  of  the  Chil- 
dren of  the  Chapel  in  future.  It  did  not  shut  up  the  theatre  nor 
prohibit  the  Queen's  Children  from  being  employed  in  plays  at 
Blackfriars  thereaiter,  under  a  new  management.  Nor  did  it  in 
any  way  affect  Gyles  in  his  official  position,  which  he  continued 
to  hold  the  rest  of  his  life.  The  Queen's  Court  seems  to  have 
found  no  fault  in  him,  and  he  continued  thereafter  as  formerly 
to  supply  the  children  of  her  Majesty's  Chapel  for  both  singing 
and  acting.  His  furnishing  of  the  children  as  actors  and  singers 
at  Blackfriars  was  upon  this  and  numerous  other  evidences  within 
the  powers  of  his  Commission. 

Nor  did  the  decree  affect  the  Yeomen  of  the  Revels,  Ed.  Kirk- 
ham,  who  as  official  of  the  Queen  had  furnished  apparel  and  dis- 
bursed money  weekly  for  the  maintenance  of  the  Boys  at  Black- 
friars ;  for  he  continued  to  do  the  same  throughout  the  rest  of 
Elizabeth's  reign,  and  even  became  a  partner  in  the  management 
and  sharer  in  the  profits.1 

In  the  judgment  of  the  Court  Evans  alone  had  transgressed 
his  privileges  and  abused  the  trust  reposed  in  him. 

Certain  other  phases  of  the  Clifton  case  and  the  Queen's  atti- 
tude in  it  will  be  taken  up  later.2 

1  Infra,  87-94.  2 Infra,  126,  159. 


CHAPTER  VI 

DATING  EVENTS,  AND  ESTABLISHMENT  OF  NEW 
MANAGEMENT1 


The  exact  date  of  Clifton's  Complaint  and  the  Decree  of  the 
Court  would  be  of  value  in  placing  events  in  proper  chronological 
order.  Both  are  determinable  approximately,  at  least  by  year  and 
court-term. 

Evans  after  three  successful  years,  finding  the  venture  profit- 
able enough  to  make  it  the  business  of  his  life,  as  already  noted, 
leased  the  Blackfriars  of  Richard  Burbage  September  2,  1600,  for 
a  period  of  twenty-one  years.2  This  was  three  and  a  half  months 
prior  to  impressing  young  Thomas  Clifton,  Dec.  13.  The  Com- 
plaint to  the  Queen  as  we  have  seen,  was  made  "about  one  yere"3 
after  the  offense;  i.  e.,  in  the  fall  or  winter  of  1601.4  Circum- 
stances lead  to  the  feeling  of  some  certainty  that  if  the  bill  was 
not  exhibited  in  court  early  in  the  Michaelmas  (Oct.-Dec.)  term, 


IThis  chapter  was  prepared  for 
the  press  three  years  ago.  Since 
then  I  have  discovered  certain  doc- 
uments and  data  settling  definitely 
some  of  the  points  in  question.  The 
corroborative  and  final  nature  of 
these  gives  some  hope  for  the  other 
items,  when  the  field  is  fully  worked 
out.  Had  I  come  upon  the  new 
materials  earlier,  the  chapter  would 
not  have  taken  its  present  form. 
But  the  matter  is  allowed  to  stand, 
with  some  security  that  the  items 
dealt  with  will  not  hereafter  be 
thrown  into  admired  disorder  as 
they  have  been  in  the  past  by  dif- 
ferent writers.  The  whole  chapter 
serves  as  an  example  of  the  severe 
process  of  elimination  and  exhaus- 
tion that  I  have  had  to  follow  in 
occasional  parts  of  chapters  where 
the  sterner  authority  of  documen- 
tary declaration  failed. 

2  See  supra,  572-574. 


3  See  supra,  79\ 

4  Since  writing  these  first  five 
paragraphs,  I  have  examined  Clif- 
ton's original  Bill  of  Complaint  at 
the  Public  Record  Office.  It  bears 
no  date  on  its  face.  But  as  is  the 
case  with  all  bills  in  Star  Chamber, 
the  date  of  filing  is  recorded  on 
the  back  of  the  parchment.  The 
date  of  trial  is  endorsed  below  this. 

"Marti  decimo  Quinto  Decem- 
bris  Anno  xliiij  Elizabeth 
Regine 

Willm  Mill 


Mr.  James  Greenstreet,  who  dis- 
covered this  document,  failed  to 
note  its  date  when  he  published  it 
in  The  Athenaeum,  10  Aug.,  1889, 
203-4.  Dependence  upon  his  publi- 
cation as  accurate  long  led  me  to 
suppose  the  document  undated. 


DATING  EVENTS— NEW   MANAGEMENT 


85 


knowledge  of  the  furthcoming  charge?  reached  Evans  in  sonic 
other  way  in  October.  For  Evans,  on  the  importunity  of  his  wife, 
deeded  everything, — Blackfriars  lease,  household  goods,  and  all, — 
to  his  son-in-law,  Alexander  Hawkins,  on  the  twenty-first  of  that 
month.  Doubtless  as  a  result  of  information  or  intimation  of 
Clifton's  charges,  fearing  the  case  might  go  hard  with  him  and 
entail  financial  loss,  he  put  his  property  thus  out  of  his  hands,  as 
men  do  yet,  to  save  it.1 

The  Decree  fell  between  the  date  of  this  transfer  of  property 
and  April  20,  1602,  when  Evans  circumvented  its  inhibitions 
against  his  using  the  Queen's  Children  by  entering  into  certain 
Articles  of  Agreement.2  As  the  Easter  term  of  1602  did  not  open 
until  May  1,  the  Decree,  causing  this  new  arrangement,  fell  in 
either  Michaelmas  or  Hilary  term.3     Kirkham's  attorney  in  the 


1  Evans  in  his  Answer  in  the  case 
of  Kirkham  vs.  Painton  (G.-F., 
24 "hi)  declares  he  made  this  assign- 
ment solely  to  indemnify  Hawkins 
on  his  400/.  bond  to  Burbage  as 
security  for  the  rent  of  Blackfriars 
(supra,  .">~— :,7' ),  and  that  he  did 
"vpon  the  earnest  and  ymportunate 
request  of  his  this  defts  wife, 
graunt  &  convey  vnto  him  the  said 
Alexander  Hawkins,  who  married 
this  deft8  daughter,  all  his  goodes 
chattels  and  leases  implem"  hows- 
hold-stuff,  wares,  comodities,  &  all 
his  goods.  Notwthstanding  wcB 
graunt  this  deP  kept  the  said  orig- 
inall  Lease  made  by  the  said  Rich- 
ard Burbadge,  and  hath  ever  since 
enioyed  and  contynued  the  posses- 
sion aswell  of  all  his  said  goodes, 
leases,  implements  &  other  the 
premises,"  &c. 

It  does  not  seem  to  have  oc- 
curred to  Hawkins  or  Evans  or  the 
wife  that  Mich  security  was  needed 
when  a  year  ago  the  lease  was  made. 
The  cause  of  the  present  act  cannot 
lie  in  lack  of  prosperity.  For  the 
Children  a1  Blackfriars  were  never 
more  popular  than  in  this  year  of 
ifioi  (sec.  for  example  on  Hamlet, 
infra,  1 76  77 1  and  doubtless  the 
plays  broughl  Evans  more  money 
than  formerly.  The  sudden  an 
of  all  parties  concerned, — especially 


of  the  wife, — the  wholesale  nature 
of  the  assignment,  and  the  fact  that 
in  spite  of  the  transfer  (non  bona 
fide)  Evans  still  kept  and  enjoyed 
all,  coupled  with  the  circumstance 
that  Clifton  about  this  time  pre- 
sented his  case  in  Star  Chamber, 
seem  conclusive  circumstantial  evi- 
dence. [Later. — As  shown  supra, 
S4\  Clifton's  Bill  was  filed  Dec. 
15,  1601,  seven  weeks  after  this 
transfer.  This  does  not  alter  the 
probability  that  Evans  had  learned 
of  the  impending  danger,  but  rather 
strengthens  it.  For  had  Evans  not 
made  the  transfer  until  after  the 
filing  of  the  complaint,  his  act 
would  have  been  held  in  law  as  an 
attempt  to  defraud.] 

-Infra,  87-91. 

'Court  terms  of  this  period  un- 
der Elizabeth  and  James  I : — 
Michaelmas  term  begins  0  or  10  Oct. 
Hilary  term  begins  23  or  '.' 1  Jan. 
Hilary  term  ends  12  or  13  Feb 
Easter    term    begins    17    days    after 

Easter. 
Trinity    term    begins    Friday 

Corpus  Christi  day  (June). 
— See  John  J.  Bond,  Assistant 
Keeper  of  Public  Records,  Handy- 
of  Rules  and  Tables  for  veri- 
fying Dates  with  the  Christian  Era, 
&c.    (1869) 


86  CHILDREN  OF  THE  CHAPEL  AT  BLACKFRIARS 

replication  already  quoted  from,1  dates  it  "in  or  about  the  three 
and  ffortieth  yeare"  of  Elizabeth.1  Her  forty-third  year  ended 
November  16,  1601.  The  "in  or  about"  might  mean, — since  Kirk- 
ham  is  giving  purposely  a  twist  to  events, — either  the  closing  of 
the  forty-third  year  or  opening  of  the  forty-fourth,  and  therefore 
fit  either  Michaelmas  or  Hilary  term.  Also,  the  Kirkham  docu- 
ments in  this  suit  assign  to  forty-third  Elizabeth  certain  other 
events  closely  connected  with  Clifton's  Complaint  and  the  Star 
Chamber  Decree,  but  belonging  in  April,  1602.2  It  may  be  there 
is  similarly  here  in  Kirkham's  dating  the  Decree  an  error  of  two 
or  three  months  in  the  regnal  year. 

There  is  strong  probability  then  that  the  Decree  fell  in  Hilary 
term  (Jan.-Feb.)   1602. 

Other  considerations  are  contributive  to  the  same  conclusion. 
It  is  not  likely  that  the  new  arrangements  in  management  were 
held  in  suspense  from  October  to  the  following  April.  The  new 
partners  were  eager  to  join  Evans,3  and  Evans  himself  could  not 
openly  continue  in  personal  charge.  The  briefer  interval,  from 
Hilary  to  April  20,  seems  the  more  probable  one  for  making  new 
arrangements. 

Also,  the  evidences  are  convincing  that  the  Decree  fell  after 
Hamlet  was  on  the  stage.  Both  Hamlet  and  the  Decree  are  an- 
swered from  the  Blackfriars  stage  in  this  order.  In  his  May  Day, 
acted  in  the  spring  of  1602,  Chapman  ridiculously  parodies  some 
of  the  striking  parts  of  Hamlet,  as  the  "To  be"  soliloquy,  "What  a 
piece  of  work  is  man,"  &c,  with  numerous  other  scrappy  satiric 
drives,  all  of  which  sound  as  if  Chapman  had  heard  the  new  trag- 
edy a  time  or  two  while  his  May  Day  was  in  progress  and  had 
caught  just  enough  to  serve  as  basis  for  absurd  take-offs.4  May 
Day  seems  thus  Chapman's  and  the  Children-company's  laughing 
answer  to  Shakespeare's  and  the  Globe's  strictures  in  Hamlet  on 
the  Blackfriars  establishment.  But  in  Chapman's  next  play,  The 
Widow's  Tears,  seen  on  the  Blackfriars  stage  Sept.  18,  1602,5 
doubtless  the  opening  play  of  the  season,  is  the  sharp  satire,  as 
already  noticed,6  apparently  aimed  at  results  of  the  Star  Chamber 

1  Supra,  814-82\  4See  infra,  168. 

2 Infra,  89.  "See  infra,  106,  115,  1181,  120. 

3 Infra,  87-881.  "See  infra,  82-83. 


DATING  EVENTS— NEW  MANAGEMENT  87 

case.  It  seems  quite  likely  that  the  satire  is  directed  not  merely 
at  the  Decree,  but  also  at  Lord  Hunsdon's  consequent  driving 
Evans  into  the  country  in  May,  1602.1 

It  would  be  comforting  to  know  exactly  whether  the  Queen's 
attendance  at  a  play  at  Blackfriars  Dec.  29,  1601,'-  preceded  or 
followed  the  Decree.  It  was  certainly  [cf.  84*,  g64]  later  than  the 
Complaint.  I  should  be  glad  to  believe  if  probabilities  would  al- 
low, that  it  was  subsequent  also  to  the  Decree ;  for  that  would  give 
an  added  item  in  the  Queen's  determination  with  reference  to 
Blackfriars.  However,  as  the  Queen  seems  to  have  been  accus- 
tomed to  attend  plays  there,  the  discovery  of  the  exact  date  of  the 
Decree  as  antecedent  to  this  single  event  would  probably  do  no 
more  in  the  present  regard  than  reenforce  our  knowledge  of  the 
favor  and  support  she  gave  in  the  theatrical  use  of  the  Chapel 
Boys.  The  slight  probability  that  the  Decree  preceded  is  out- 
weighed by  the  stronger  probability,  as  shown  above,  that  it  fell 
in  Hilary  term.3 

After  the  Decree,  the  concessions  for  use  of  the  Chapel  Chil- 
dren were  apparently  granted  to  Kirkham,4  Rastell,  and  Ken- 
dall.5   But  Evans  still  held  the  lease.     So  these  men  came  to  him 

'See  infra,  93.  the  Revels  at  Court,  ed.  P.  Cun- 
*See  infra,  95-96°.  ningham,  Shakes.  Soc.  Pub.,  1842, 
"This  latter  probability  is  made  175).  Kirkham's  name  appears 
a  certainty  by  the  dates  of  filing  thereafter  under  Tyllney  and  Buck, 
and  trial  endorsed  on  the  back  of  Its  first  appearance  is  to  the  report 
Clifton's  Bill  of  Complaint,  discov-  of  [Oct.  31]— Feb.  14,  1582-[3]. 
ered  since  writing  these  paragraphs,  (Idem,  187.)  He  was  still  Yeoman 
as  noted  supra,  84\  844.  The  last  under  Buck  in  1615  (Public  Record 
line  of  the  endorsement,  "p  octab  Office,  Declared  Accounts  of  the 
Hiliur,"  indicates  the  trial  was  in  Pipe  Office,  Roll  2005).  He  was 
Hilary  term  (Jan. — Feb.).  There  granted  letters  patent  for  his  office 
was  no  postponement.  Easter  term  28  April,  28  Eliz.  (15S6).  (Pub- 
in  L602  did  not  begin  until  May  1,  lished  in  A  Collection  of  Ancient 
but  the  Decree  had  already  been  Documents  Respecting,  the  Office  of 
rendered  prior  to  April  20,  1602,  Master  of  the  Revels,  &c,  ed.  J.  O. 
when  Evans  through  consequent  ne-  Halliwell,  1870.  Only  11  copies 
v  entered  into  new  arrange-  printed.  Quoted  in  part,  infra,  99'. 
naents  for  the  conduct  of  the  Black-  But  he  had  already  been  occupying 
friars.  This  settles  the  Decree  as  the  place  for  at  least  three  years, 
in  Hilary,  1.  <\,  between  Jan.  23  as  shown  above, 
and  Feb.  13,  1602.  Kirkham  was  Yeoman  during  the 
'Edward  Kirkham  succeeded  whole  existence  of  the _  children- 
Walter  F]  Yeoman  of  the  companies.  In  their  history,  he 
Revels.  Fyssche's  name  is  signed  through  his  official  position  is  even 
for  the  last  time  to  the  report  of  a  more  important  factor  than  F.vans. 
the  Master  of  the  Revels,  Ed.  Tyll-  'From  various  newly  found  doc- 
ney,  Oct.  31,  1581.     (Extracts  from  uments  touching  the  managers  per- 


88  CHILDREN  OF  THE  CHAPEL  AT  BLACKFRIARS 

and  "earnestly  labored  with  and  entreated"1  him  with  the  result 
that  on  April  20,  1602,  Articles  of  Agreement  were  entered  into 
between  Evans  and  his  son-in-law  Hawkins  on  the  one  side  and 
these  three  men  on  the  other  to  form  a  copartnership  and  share 
expenses  and  profits  half-and-half.- 

That  the  new  partners  felt  they  had  valuable  concessions  which, 
however,  were  dependent  upon  a  place  of  acting  and  which  Evans 
as  lessee  of  the  theatre  might  easily  injure  if  not  bound  in  a  penal 
sum,  is  shown  by  the  fact  that  they  exacted  of  Evans  and  Haw- 
kins a  200  /.  bond3  of  even  date  for  the  faithful  performance  of 
the  contract,  but  gave  none  in  return.  Apparently  to  circumvent 
the  Star  Chamber  decree,  a  separate  agreement  was  entered  into 
by  which  the  new  men  were  to  pay  Evans  eight  shillings  a  week, 
evidently  as  salary  for  managing  the  theatre,4  for  the  carrying 
out  of  which  thev  gave  Evans  a  bond  under  the  same  date  for 

50  I-5 

Evans  could  not  be  known  openly  in  the  management.6  So 
by  the  new  arrangement  his  son-in-law  Hawkins  and  these  three 
men  became  nominally  the  Masters,  while  he  was  their  hired 
manager,  although  he  still  held  chief  control. — And  the  Children 
of  the  Chapel  continued  at  Blackfriars  practically  as  before. 

Since  the  company  was  operated  under  these  Articles  until  its 
termination  in  1608,  it  seems  worth  while  to  settle  once  and  for 

sonally  as  well  as  in  their  conduct  Kirkham,  Bill  of  Complaint,  G.-F., 

of  the   Blackfriars,  particularly   un-  211b. 

der   James    I,   William   Rastell   was  That     these     solicitations     came 
a  London  merchant  who,  however,  from  the  new  men,  not  from  Evans, 
had  no   large  part   in   the   manage-  is  admitted  by  Kirkham  in  replying 
ment,   and  Thomas   Kendall  was  a  to   the   above   paragraph  : — "true   yt 
haberdasher,  who  later,  under  James  is   that  he   this   defte   and  the   said 
I.,  became  the  Blackfriars  manager.  William  Rastell  and  Thomas  Ken- 
See  further,  complete  work,  vol.  I,  dall  in  the  bill  likewise  named  did 
and  vol.  III.  treate   and   had   communication   wth 
*"And  he  your  said  oratour  be-  the    said    compl*    to    such    end   and 
inge     soe     possessed    one     Edward  purpose  as  in  the  bill  is  set  forthe, 
Kyrkham  of  London  gent'  William  and    that    thervpon    it    was    agreed 
Rastell    and    Thomas    Kendall    late  and     concluded,"     &c. — Evans     vs. 
of    London    deceased    ernestlye    la-  Kirkham,  Answer,   G.-F.,  216a. 
bored  wth  and  entreated  your  said  2  Infra,  S97,  922. 
oratour   that  he  your   said   oratour  3Infra,  ibid. 
would  suffer  them  to  have  and  en-  *Cf.  infra,  98,  102-4. 
ioye    some    parte    of    the    demised          *  Infra,  1023. 
premisses  wherevppon  it  was  agreed  "Cf.  infra,  93. 
and     concluded,"     &c. — Evans     vs. 


DATING  EVENTS— NEW  MANAGEMENT 


89 


all  the  elate  above  stated.  Except  for  this  reason  and  certain 
items  of  essential  reference,  the  rest  of  this  chapter  might  better 
be  omitted. 

Kirkham  puts  the  date  of  the  Assignment1  and  Articles  to- 
gether "in  or  about"  43  Elizabeth,2  declaring  that  the  assignment 
of  one-half  of  the  lease  was  made  by  Evans  to  Hawkins  in  trust 
for  the  new  partners,  Kirkham,  Rastell,  and  Kendall,  in  consid- 
eration that  they  "would  disburse  about  the  premises  the  summe 
of  ffouer  hundred  pounds,"3 — all  as  a  part  of  the  Agreement.4 
But  Kirkham's  dating  throws  both  Assignment  and  Articles  to- 
gether,— which  proves  erroneous.  The  statement,  "in  or  about" 
43  Elizabeth,  is  general  enough  to  fit  the  known  dates  of  late 
1601,  or  early  1602  (44  Eliz.).  His  dating  is  further  vitiated  by 
proof5  that  he  fabricates  both  the  transfer  of  the  lease0  and  the 
400  /.  expenditure7  stated  in  connection  with  it. 


1  Supra,  85. 

2  Kirkham  vs.  Painton,  Bill  of 
Complaint,   G.-R,   224. 

*Ibid. 

*The  bond  including  the  terms 
of  these  Articles  proves  his  conten- 
tion false.     See  infra,  92". 

"Kirkham  vs.  Painton,  The  Joint 
and  Several  Anszvers  of  Heminges 
and  Burbage,  G.-F.,  234-39.  Sup- 
ported by  Painton's  Anszver,  G.-R, 
230-32;  Evans's  Anszver,  G.-F.,  243; 
and  Decision  of  the  Court,  G.-F., 
250. 

"If  the  lease  had  been  assigned 
in  trust  as  claimed,  it  would  have 
required  Burbage's  knowledge  and 
consent  in  order  to  be  legal.  But 
Burbage  knew  of  no  such  transfer. 
(See  reference,  ".  s.,  note  5).  The 
decision  of  the  court  (u.  s.  note  5) 
settles  it  that  there  was  no  such 
assignment,  by  declaring,  "yet  neu- 
erthcles  the  said  conveyance  was 
never  perfected  and  sealled."  The 
assignment  of  lease  and  all  prop- 
erty and  goi ids  by  Evans  was,  as 
we  have  seen  {supra,  85),  solely  to 
1  rawkins. 

'Since  the  building  itself  was  bul 
recently  refitted,  of  course  no  such 
expenditure  "about  the  premisses" 
was     required.      [Recently     I     have 


found  documents  giving  the  full  ex- 
tent of  repairs  in  detail  with  their 
cost  as  11  /.  2  d,  paid  8  Dec.  1603, 
by  Henry  Evans  alone.  See  docu- 
ments in  vol.  Ill  of  complete  work.] 
Burbage  and  Hemings  show  (u.  s., 
89";  G.-R,  236)  that  no  such  sum 
as  Kirkham  claims  was  thus  ex- 
pended. They  say  that  if  any  sum 
was  spent,  it  was,  as  they  think, 
for  "playinge  apparell  &  other  im- 
plements &  properties  touchinge  & 
concerninge  the  furnishinge  &  set- 
tinge  forth  of  Players  &  Plays,"  and 
seem  by  their  "if"  to  cast  doubt 
upon  outlay  even  for  these.  But 
as  shown  in  later  chapters  (vol.  E. 
of  complete  work),  no  sum  was 
spent  for  apparel,  &c,  by  the  com- 
pany  until    the    reign    of    lame-    I. 

Kirkham  is  never  reliable.  His 
present  claim  (July  I,  1612)  IS  WO  /. 
(G.-F..  224),  but  in  a  suil  two 
months  earlier  (May  5,  1612)  it  is, 
for  the  same  expenditure,  "three 
hundred  pounds  at  the  leaste"  (G.- 
F.  217o).  His  statements  concern- 
in-  "disbui  ■  mentS,"  taken  with  the 
rest  of  the  history,  make  one  t'eel 
there  is  something  in  what  h( 
though    not    a-    lie    would    have    the 

Courl  believe.  In  his  official  ca- 
pacity a-   Yeoman  of  the  Revels,  he 


90  CHILDREN  OF  THE  CHAPEL  AT  BLACKFRIARS 

It  is  sure  that  the  Assignment  was  Oct.  21,  1601,  and  was 
made  to  Hawkins  alone.  Painton  gives  this  date,1  and  Evans 
declares  the  conveyance,  drawn  solely  to  indemnify  Hawkins, 
his  surety  on  the  400  /.  bond  to  Burbage,  was  made  "long  tyme 
before  any  communication  had  between  this  deffc  and  Alexander 
Hawkins  on  the  one  partie,  and  the  compl1,  Rastall,  and  Kendall 
on  the  other  partie."2 

This  puts  the  Articles  later  than  the  Assignment.  Evans  him- 
self dates  them  April  20,  1602.3  Painton  also  declares  the  date 
of  "certayn  articles"  was  April  20,  1602.4  But  Painton  mentions 
only  one  item  contained,  the  acknowledgment  of  the  absolute  as- 
signment to  Hawkins,  for  that  alone  concerns  him.  Evans,  how- 
ever, says  these  Articles  contained  not  only  this  item,5  but  were 
"the  said  Articles  of  Agreement6  .  .  .  mencioned  in  the  said 
bill."7  In  the  same  document,  he  claims  the  operation  of  these 
Articles  up  to  the  termination  of  the  company  in  1608.8  His 
statements  here  are  simply  an  expanded  (partly  verbatim)  copy 
from  his  Replication  in  a  suit9  two  months  earlier,  in  which  both 
he10  and  Kirkham11  agree  the  Articles  in  question  (the  date  of 

continued    as    formerly,    during   the  the  gist  of  much  else  agreed  to. 

remaining   year   of    Elizabeth    after  Kirkham's   Bill   in  this   suit  was 

the    1602    contract    with    Evans,    to  "absolutely  dismissed"  by  the  Court 

furnish    the    necessary    supplies    of  (G.-F.,     251). — Which     is     a     final 

apparel,    &c, — even    to    superabun-  commentary   on    the    merits    of   his 

dance   (infra,  993,  1061), — but  at  the  claim. 

Queen's  expense.     He  seems  to  be  l  Kirkham  vs.   Painton,   Painton's 

claiming     now      (1612)      personally  Answer,  G.-F.,  230. 

what  he  had  expended  officially.  2Idem,    Evans's    Answer,    G.-F., 

Of  course   by   the   terms    of   the  244. 

lease    (G.-F,    212   and   241)    Evans  3Idem,  245. 

was  bound  to  keep  the  building  in  *Idem,   Painton's   Answer,   G.-F., 

repair.      Hence,    when    he    took    in  231. 

Kirkham  et  al.,  who  were  to  share  "Idem,    Evans's    Answer,    G.-F., 

expenses    and    profits    half-and-half  243a. 

with  him,  he  exacted  their  share  in  "Idem,  245c. 

this  also.      (Ibid.     Also  infra,  922.)  V.  e.,  Bill  of  Complaint  in  Kirk- 

Although    Burbage     and     Hemings  ham  vs.  Painton,  to  which  he  is  an- 

show  (w.  s.,  G.-F.,  234-39)  this  pro-  swering. 

vision  in  their  contract  was  not  the  8  Kirkham    vs.    Painton,    Evans's 

basis    of   the    400  /.    expenditure,    it  Answer,  G.-F.,  245-46. 

seems   to   be   the   only   basis    Kirk-  "Evans    vs.    Kirkham     (May    5, 

ham  could   show  the  Court  in  the  1612),  Replication,   G.-F.,   221-22. 

Articles     for    his     fictitious     claim.  10Idem,    Evans's    Bill    of    Com- 

The  Articles  are  not  known  to  ex-  plaint,  G.-F.,  211 ;  and  Replication, 

ist.      But    doubtless    the    coincident  G.-F.,  221. 

Obligation    or    200/.    bond    (G.-F,  uIdem,    Kirkham's    Answer,   G.- 

211-12;    240-41;     [and    infra,    922])  F.,  217. 
give  this  provision  fully,  as  well  as 


DATING  EVENTS— NEW  MANAGEMENT  91 

which  is  not  there  mentioned)  were  the  ones  under  which  they 
began  the  copartnership.1 

There  was  then  but  one  set  of  Articles  under  which  the  com- 
pany was  operated  till  its  termination  in  1608,  and  these  bore  date 
of  April  20,  1602.  This  is  unequivocally  settled  by  the  identifi- 
cation of  the  Articles  by  both  Kirkham  and  Evans  in  the  earlier 
suit  with  those  of  the  later  suit;  the  declaration  of  both  Evans 
and  Painton  as  to  the  date ;  Evans's  willingness  to  bring  the  Ar- 
ticles into  court:  and  the  fact  that  the  Court  had  the  Articles 
before  him  in  rendering  a  decree  against  Kirkham's  petition  in 
the  later  suit.2 

[Since  writing  the  above,  I  have  found  two  separate  copies  of 
the  200  /.  bond,  each  under  date  of  April  20.  1602 ;  also  one  copy 
of  the  50  /.  bond  under  same  date.  Both  were  made  on  the  same 
day  as  the  Articles  merely  as  security  for  fulfilment  of  the  con- 
tract. 

This  settles  the  question  of  date. 

These  two  bonds  are  valuable  in  many  respects.  The  50  /.  bond 
is  quoted  and  discussed  later.  The  200  /.  bond  is  especially  valu- 
able as  containing  the  terms  of  the  Articles  of  Agreement.  By 
these  it  is  seen  that  the  partners  were  to  share  the  profits  and 
expenses.  But  the  only  expenses  provided  for  are  rent  and  re- 
pairs. No  mention  is  made  of  the  chief  items  of  expense. — as 
maintenance  of  the  company,  apparel,  and  furniture.''  This  is 
suggestive  in  itself  and  is  corroborated  in  its  significance  by  other 

'In  reading  the  forty  pages  of  211-12;  240-41).  [Also  infra,  925.] 
documents  in  these  two  suits,  it  is  Another  bond   was   given   at  the 

difficult  to  keep   apart  the  Articles  same    time    by    Kirkbam    et    al.    to 

of   Agreement   and   the   200  /.   Obli-  Evans    for    50  /.      But    there    is    no 

gation    based    on    them.      Hence    I  danger  of  confusing  it  with  the  Ar- 

note    here    that    the    Articles    were  tides.     It  is  taken  up  in  proper  or- 

drawn   up   by   Evans    (G.-F.    245&)  der  under  James   I.      [But  cf.   also 

with  date  of  April  20,  1602   (ibid.),  infra,  1022.] 

and  "concluded"  or  agreed  to  by  2It  would  not  seem  necessary  to 
all  (G.-F.,  2llb,  216a).  Kirkham  give  such  elaborate  proof  were  it 
and  partners  in  their  behalf  drew  not  that  F.  G.  Fleay,  o/\  cit..  132- 
up  a  200/.  bond  or  "Obligation"  33,  209,  by  his  misdating  has  thrown 
(G.-F.,  211c,  216o),  which  was  events  into  confusion,  and  led  later 
signed  by  Evans  and  Hawkins  as  writers  in  the  field  into  gross  error, 
a  guarantee  to  carry  out  the  Arti-  Also  in  reading  the  documents  pub- 
cles.  _  The  two  instruments  were  lished  in  his  work,  one  should  first 
coincident.  The  Obligation  seems  of  all  blol  oul  the  date-  In-  has  in- 
to recite  much  of  the  Articles,  and  serted. 
is  given  substantially  twice    (G.-F,           iCf.  infra,  101-2.  113,  1 


92 


CHILDREN  OF  THE  CHAPEL  AT  BLACKFRIARS 


documents  that  these  were  provided  by  the  Queen,1  and  were  not 
therefore  matters  of  charge  to  be  shared.  Consequently  they  are 
not  mentioned  among  the  company's  items  of  expense  in  either 
Articles  or  bond. 

The  Condition  of  the  200  /.  bond  as  giving  these  significant 
terms  of  the  Articles  of  Agreement  on  which  the  new  manage- 
ment was  established  is  here  subjoined.2] 


1  Infra,    101-2,    1061,    126-29,    148/: 

2  (Marks  of  abbreviation  are 
translated  into  italics.)  The  suits 
in  which  this  document  is  enrolled 
occurred  under  James  I.  Hence  the 
date  of  the  Obligation  is  given  as 
"vicesimo  die  Aprilis  Anno  regni 
dominae  Elizabeth  nup^r  Reginae 
Anglice  quadragesimo  quarto." 

The  Condio'on  of  this  obligacion 
is  such  That  Whereas  Richard  Bur- 
bage  of  the  parishe  of  S'  leonardes 
in  Shorditch  in  the  Countie  of  Mid- 
dlesex  gentleman  by  his  Jndenture 
of  lease  bearinge  date  the  second 
day  of  September  in  the  two  and 
fortith  yere  of  the  raigne  of  our 
sou<?raigne  ladie  Elizabeth  the 
Queenes  Matlc  that  now  is  hath 
leased  and  to  farme  letten  vnto  the 
within  bounden  henrye  Evans  all 
that  greate  hall  or  Roome  with  the 
roomes  ouer  the  same  in  the  said 
indenture  mencioned  scituate  with- 
in the  pr^cincte  of  the  blackfriers 
london  to  hold  vnto  the  said  henrye 
Evans  his  executors  and  Assignes 
from  the  feast  of  Sct  Michaell 
Tharkangell  next  ensuinge  after  the 
date  of  the  saide  Jndenture  vnto 
the  ende  and  tearme  of  one  and 
twentie  yeares  from  thence  next  en- 
suinge fullie  to  be  compleated  and 
ended  yealdinge  and  payinge  there- 
fore yearley  duringe  the  saide  terme 
vnto  the  said  Richard  Burbage  his 
heires  and  Assignes  fortie  pounds 
of  lawfull  money  of  England  att 
fowre  feastes  or  tearmes  in  the 
yeare  that  is  to  saye  att  the  feasts 
of  the  birth  of  our  lord  God  than- 
unciaci'on  of  the  blessed  virgin  Ma- 
rie the  Nativitie  of  S*  John  Bap- 
tist &  S*  Michaell  tharkangell  by 
even  and  equall  porcions  to  be  payd 


if  now  the  within  named  William 
Rastell  Edward  kirkham  and 
Thomas  kendall  and  eume  of  them 
their  and  euerie  of  their  executors 
administrators  and  Assignes  shall 
or  may  from  henceforthe  duringe 
the  continuance  of  the  said  lease 
have  the  ioynte  vse  occupa«on  and 
profytt  together  with  the  within 
bounden  henrye  Evans  &  Alexander 
hawkyns  their  executors  Adminis- 
trators and  Assignes  and  euerye  of 
them  of  and  in  the  said  greate  hall 
or  Roome  and  other  the  premisses 
without  the  lett  or  trouble  of  the 
saide  henrie  and  Alexander  their 
executors  Administrators  and  As- 
signes or  any  of  them  or  of  any 
other  person  or  persons  by  their  or 
any  of  their  meanes  or  procurement 
they  the  saide  William  Edward  and 
Thomas  their  executors  administra- 
tors and  Assignes  or  any  of  them 
payinge  vnto  the  said  henrie  and 
Alexander  their  executors  or  As- 
signes or  to  some  or  one  of  them 
from  henceforth  yearlie  duringe  the 
continuance  of  the  said  lease  the 
moyetie  or  one  halfe  of  the  saide 
yearlie  rente  att  the  fower  vsuall 
ffeastes  in  the  yeare  or  within  one 
and  twentie  dayes  next  after  euerye 
of  the  saide  feasts  by  even  por- 
cions and  also  bearinge  and  pay- 
inge of  the  moytie  of  such  Chardges 
as  from  tyme  to  tyme  shalbe  laide 
out  or  disbursed  for  in  or  aboute 
the  reperaa'ons  of  the  premisses  by 
and  accordinge  to  the  purporte  and 
true  meanynge  and  limitac/ons  of 
the  said  lease  And  alsoe  pmnit- 
tynge  and  suffringe  the  saide  henrie 
&  Alexander  their  executors  and 
Assignes  and  euerye  of  them  to 
have     ioynte     vse    occupaa'on     and 


DATING  EVENTS— NEW  MANAGEMENT  93 

Another  minor  item  affecting  the  management  now  becomes 
clear  and  at  the  same  time  has  contributive  value  in  showing  that 
the  Queen's  Court  of  Star  Chamber  had  aimed  its  judgment 
solely  at  Evans,  in  no  way  interfering  with  the  theatre  as  such, 
but  rather  protecting  it. 

Evans  was  forced  to  "departe  into  the  Countrye"1  within  a 
month  after  signing  the  Obligation  and  Articles.  This  compul- 
sory departure  shows  a  close  connection  with  the  Decree.  Evans 
says  he  had  to  leave  because  of  evidence  given  by  his  new  part- 
ners.2 Doubtless  upon  the  Lord  Chamberlain's  investigation  as 
to  whether  the  Court's  order  was  being  obeyed  or  not,  these  men 
gave  testimony  of  the  new  arrangement  showing  Evans  retained 
at  least  half  proprietary  interest. 

But  by  the  Decree,  Evans  could  not  enjoy  half  the  privileges 
from  the  Queen's  Children  any  more  than  he  could  enjoy  all. 
The  theatre  however  was  to  be  continued,  but  not  by  him.  Hence 
Lord  Hunsdon's  peremptory  order  to  "avoid  and  leave  the  same." 

Open  contempt  of  this  order  would  have  meant  summary  pun- 
ishment. So  Evans  made  another  shift.  Just  as  previously  in 
anticipation  of  danger  in  the  suit  of  Clifton  he  had  put  his  prop- 
erty opportunely  out  of  his  hands  to  save  it,  so  now  to  escape 
the  penalty  imposed  and  make  it  appear  he  was  obeying  abso- 
lutely, he  turned  over  his  share  of  the  active  management  also  to 
Hawkins,  who  was  in  fact,  as  the  documents  show,  merely  to  act 
for  him,  and  got  himself  safely  out  of  London.  How  long  he 
remained  away  does  not  affect  the  history  of  the  company.  Hir> 
claim  of  losing  300  /.  by  his  enforced  absence  is  an  undoubted 
fiction,  as  his  son-in-laws  seems  fully  to  have  guarded  his  interests. 

profytt  together  with  them  the  said  2"And  the  CompF  further  for 
William  Edward  and  Thomas  their  Replicacion  saith  that  he  was,  by  the 
executors  Administrators  and  As-  def  and  his  said  Associates  vpon 
signs  and  cume  of  them  of  and  in  false  informacion  made  to  the  late 
the  aide  greate  hall  and  prrmisses  Lord  Hunsdon,  late  Lord  Cham- 
without  their  or  any  of  their  letter  herlain.  against  this  Compl*,  corn- 
troubles  and  interrupcions  That  aunded  by  In-  Lo*  to  avoyd  and 
then  the  present  obligacton  to  be  leave  the  same,  for  fear  of  whose 
voide  and  of  none  effect  or  els  it  to  displeasure  the  Compl1  was  forced 
stand   in    full    force  and   venue,  to    leaue   the    Country,    and    lost    in 

For    document    in    extenso    from  want   of  not    looking  to  hi-  proffitt 

which    this    is   taken,   see   complete  there   and    Charge   otherwise   neere 

work,  vol.    Ill  three  hundred   pounds,"  &C— Evans 

'Evans     vs.     Etirkham,     Bill    of  vs.    Kirkham,    Evans's    Replia 

Complaint.  G.-F.,  312c  2130.  G.-F..    220c. 


94  CHILDREN  OF  THE  CHAPEL  AT  BLACKFRIARS 

The  theatre  was  in  no  way  interfered  with.  The  Queen's  con- 
tinned  favor  to  the  last  and  the  constant  popularity  of  the  Chil- 
dren are  shown  in  later  pages. 


CHAPTER  VII 

QUEEN  ELIZABETH  AT  THE  BLACKFRIARS 

The  history  of  the  Children  of  the  Chapel  at  Blackfriars,  with 
the  influences  under  which  they  became  a  large  factor  in  the  lit- 
erary and  social  life  of  London  and  the  conditions  that  made 
them  the  source  of  widely  ramifying  influences  from  late  Eliza- 
beth to  the  Restoration,  throws  much  of  the  stage  and  dramatic 
history  of  the  period  into  a  new  perspective.  This  arises  pri- 
marily out  of  the  Queen's  attitude. 

From  the  fact  that  her  Majesty's  Children  of  the  Chapel  were 
used  at  Blackfriars  to  present  plays,  every  student  of  the  drama 
has  for  a  long  time  felt  she  extended  to  them  special  favor.  But 
just  what  part  she  had  in  their  establishment  and  maintenance 
and  what  interest  she  took  in  their  performances  has  been  made 
possible  for  us  to  know  only  through  a  study  of  original  records, 
plays,  and  other  contemporary  evidences.  These  I  have  attempted 
to  assemble  in  the  present  work.  Important  testimony  has  al- 
ready been  adduced.  But  valuable  records  and  other  materials 
are  yet  to  be  examined  in  the  following  eight  chapters. 

The  Queen's  attendance  at  Blackfriars  theatre  Tuesday,  De- 
cember 29,  1601,  has  already  been  mentioned  incidentally.1  On 
that  date  Sir  Dudley  Carleton  in  a  gossipy  letter  of  Court-news 
to  John  Chamberlain  wrote : 

"The  Q :  dined  this  day  priuatly  at  my  Ld  Chamberlains ;  I 
came  euen  now  from  the  blackfriers  where  I  saw  her  at  the  play 
wth  all  her  candidae  auditrices."2 

1  5  "fra,  26,  87.  There  are  five  pages  of  the  orig- 

*  Transcribed    from    the    original  inal  MS.,  gossipy,  but  nothing  rar- 

MS.    in    the    Public    Record    Office,  ther   on    Blackfriars    or    Elizabeth's 

State  Papers.  Domestic  Series,  Eliz-  attendance      there.      The      letter     is 

abeth,  CCLXXXIII,  No.  48.     [The  dated    at    the    close,    "29    of    decebr 

Calendar    of    State    Papers.    Don.  r6or."     On  the  hack  it   is  addressed 

Eliz..    1601-3,    136,    prints    this    part  "To    my     very     louing     trend    John 

of    the    letter,    hut    with     incorrect  Chamberlain    these    at    Kncbworth." 
wording  and   spelling.] 


96  CHILDREN  OF  THE  CHAPEL  AT  BLACKFRIARS 

This  authoritative  record  associated  with  the  rest  of  the  present 
history  has  significance.1  Those  familiar  with  the  voluminous 
letters  of  Dudley  Carleton  are  aware  that  an  unusual  event  at 
Court  or  concerning  the  Queen  receives  some  dilation,  while  the 
customary  or  ordinary  doings  or  mere  news  items,  if  mentioned 
at  all,  are  passed  with  a  sentence  or  two,  as  in  the  present  five- 
page  document,  making  his  letters  almost  as  gossipy  and  discon- 
nected as  the  local  column  of  an  American  country-newspaper. 

When  one  examines  this  record  from  every  possible  stand- 
point, the  conclusion  becomes  irresistible  that  the  Queen  at  least 
occasionally  attended  the  Blackfriars.  Also,  as  this  was  only  one 
in  a  series  of  such  attendance,  there  is  no  reason  to  suppose  it  the 
last. 

This  conclusion  harmonizes  with  items  in  other  documents 
touching  the  conduct  of  the  theatre,  and  insofar  as  it  involves 
her  attitude  toward  the  Blackfriars,  not  only  is  supported  by  cir- 
cumstances and  declaration,  but  also  itself  adds  support  and  clear- 
ness to  others.  Among  other  things,  it  becomes  evident  why  the 
Blackfriars  Children  were  not  more  than  one  season  at  Court,2 
although  they  were  Elizabeth's  own  company,  and  enjoyed  the 
most  fashionable  and  aristocratic  patronage  of  London.3  It  be- 
comes clear  also  from  this  particular  occasion  of  attendance  after 
the  filing  of  Clifton's  Complaint,4 — just  a  fortnight  after, — that 
she  was  steadfast  in  her  support  of  Blackfriars.  and  was  willing 
in  the  face  of  opposition  to  proclaim  by  her  presence  her  purpose 
of  continued  support.5  Numerous  other  occurrences  and  condi- 
tions also  grow  clearer. 

— But  an  analysis  here  would  merelv  anticipate  conclusions 
that  come  of  themselves  through  examining  other  documents. 
So  we  may  pass  this  record  for  the  present,  with  noting  the  at- 
tendance also  of  the  ladies  of  the  Court  and  hazarding  the  sup- 
position that  the  Lord  Chamberlain,  Lord  Hunsdon,  with  whom 

'I  find  that  A.   W.   Ward,   His-  the  document  itself  that  the  Queen 

tory    of   English    Dramatic    Litera-  attended   the   Blackfriars    theatre. 
ture     (18992),     I,     4452,     notes     the  2Infra,  112,  1151,  121-221,  1574. 

existence  of  this  record,  with  a  ref-  'Infra,  112,  124,  128,  164-66,  176- 

erence  to  the  Calendar  of  State  Pa-  77. 
pers  (u.  s.).     But  he  gives  no  hint  4 Supra,  844,  87. 

of  its  connection  or  significance,  be-  'Infra,  159-61. 

yond    the    mere    fact    contained    in 


QUEEN'    ELIZABETH    AT   BLACKFRIARS 


97 


the  Queen  dined,  the  gate  to  whose  mansion  adjoined  the  south 
entrance  to  the  theatre,1  did  himself  the  honor  likewise  to  attend 
the  same  performance. 

This  is  the  only  known  record  of  Elizabeth's  attending  a  the- 
atre,- and  is  the  first  known  instance  of  such  attendance  by  any 
sovereign.1 


'Supra,  263-26\ 

""Neither  Elizabeth  nor  King 
James  the  First,  nor  Charles  the 
First.  I  believe,  ever  went  to  the 
public  theatre." — E  Malone,  Shakc- 
speare  I  'ariorum  (ed.  Boswell, 
1821),  III,  166. 

Some  i  me  who  has  made  pains- 
taking marginal  notes  in  the  copy 
of  the  above  volume  of  Malone  in 
the  Hof-  mid  Siadts-Bibliothek, 
Miinchen,  says  against  Elizabeth's 
name  here,  "She  went,  however,  to 
the  Blackfriars  in  Cynth.  Revels." 
There  are  reasons  to  believe  she 
did.  Proof  of  it  would  be  most 
gratifying.  On  the  evidence  of  the 
play  itself,  the  masque  in  Cynthia's 
Revels  if  not  the  whole  play  seems 
written  in  compliance  with  the 
Queen's   requirements   in   the  train- 


ing and  use  of  the  Children.  ( In- 
fra, 1221).  But  this  does  not  prove 
she  saw  the  play.  On  page 
504  of  the  above  volume,  the  sig- 
nature "Dibdin"  to  a  note  would 
seem  to  indicate  not  an  author 
quoted,  but  the  author  of  the  mar- 
ginal comments. — But  which  "Dib- 
din" ? 

3  It  has  hitherto  been  supposed, 
as  Malone  («.  s.),  J.  P.  Collier,  op. 
cit.  (is:?ll),  II,  64;  (18792),  I,  489; 
F.  G.  Fleay,  op.  cit.,  313,  and  the 
rest,  have  taken  it,  that  Queen 
Henrietta,  wife  of  Charles  I,  was 
the  first  person  of  royalty  to  attend 
a  theatre.  She  attended  the  private 
theatres  of  Blackfriars,  Phoenix 
(Cockpit),  and  Salisbury  Court. 
But  this  record  shows  Elizabeth  in 
priority. 


CHAPTER  VIII 

THE  QUEEN'S  MAINTENANCE  OF  THE  CHILDREN  AT 
BLACKFRIARS 

The  next  record  touching  the  Queen's  relations  to  Blackfriars 
is  a  single  paragraph  in  Evans's  Answer  in  the  suit  of  Kirkham 
vs.  Painton,1  seemingly  unimportant  at  first  sight.  It  deals  with 
one  item  arising  out  of  the  1602  Articles  and  touches  the  conduct 
of  the  theatre  both  before  and  after.    It  reads  thus  : — 

"And  towching  the  Eight  shillings  weekely  to  be  paid,2 
.  .  .  this  def1  saith  that  there  was  a  bond  of  ffiftye  powndes  made 
by  the  said  compl1  and  his  said  partners  condicioned  for  paiement 
of  the  said  some  of  eight  shillings  weekely  vnto  this  def1  because 
after  the  said  agreements  made,  the  compl1  and  his  said  Partners 
would  at  their  directions  haue  the  dietting  and  ordering  of  the 
Boyes  vsed  about  the  plaies  there,  wch  before  the  said  Compl1  had, 
and  for  the  wch  he  had  weekely  before  that  disbursed  and  allowed 
great  Somes  of  monie."3 

This  looks  like  a  trivial  paragraph  merely  "towching  the  Eight 
shillings."    No  one  has  hitherto  found  it  significant.4 

But  what  is  meant  by  "the  said  Complainant" ? 

For  several  months,  before  I  had  thoroughly  worked  the  field, 
I  was  puzzled  to  understand  this  paragraph.  I  could  make  noth- 
ing of  it  except  that  it  dealt  with  eight  shillings  to  be  paid  for 
some  unknown  reason,  and  that  there  was  an  apparent  clerical 
error  in  "the  said  Complainant"  for  "this  defendant."     It  seemed 

1  Supra,  895.  Painton,   The  Aunswere   of  Henrie 

2  See  the  50/.  bond  for  the  pay-  Evans,  gent3,  &c).  My  transcript 
ment  of  this  amount  weekly,  infra,  of  the  paragraph  from  the  original 
1023.  See  also  the  paragraph  {infra,  document  as  here  printed  differs 
1043)  in  Kirkham's  Bill  of  Com-  only  slightly  (in  the  spelling)  from 
plaint,  to  which  Evans  is  here  an-  the  print  of  Mr.  Greenstreet's  tran- 
swering.  script  as  it  appears  in  F.  G.  Fleay, 

3 Public   Record   Office,   Chancery      A  Chronicle  History  of  the  London 
Proceedings,  James  I,  Bills  and  An-      Stage   (1890),  244a. 
swers,   K  5,   No.   25    (Kirkham  vs.  *Cf.  infra,  104*. 


MAINTENANCE  OF  THE  CHILDREN  98 

to  make  sense  thus,  for  then  it  meant  that  Evans  had  made  the 
outlay. — Which  1  erroneously  then  took  to  be  the  case. 

But  no  one  has  a  right  to  declare  a  document  incorrect  upon 
assumption.     There  must  first  be  proof  of  error. 

I  examined  the  original  document  in  the  Public  Record  Office, 
and  accepted  it  as  it  stood.  Taken  thus  it  meant  that  Kirkham, 
"the  said  Complainant,"  had  made  the  disbursements  and  allow- 
ances weekly.  But  Kirkham  had  nothing  to  do  with  either  the 
taking  up  of  the  Children  or  the  personal  management  of  the  the- 
atre prior  to  the  1602  Articles  referred  to.  Moreover,  no  other 
document  mentions  him  as  having  any  connection  with  the  Black- 
friars  Children  prior  to  that  date.  I  knew  he  was  the  Queen's 
Yeoman  of  the  Revels,  but  I  could  not  see  how  that  had  anything 
to  do  with  the  point. 

With  the  discovery  of  new  materials  and  a  consideration  of  all 
evidences  in  every  aspect,  the  field  cleared.  The  Decree  of  the 
Court  of  Star  Chamber  showed  that  Evans  had  official  papers, 
and  the  Clifton  Complaint  suggested  the  same.  The  Commis- 
sion to  Gyles  and  the  practices  under  it,  with  the  Queen's  attend- 
ance at  the  theatre,  were  indubitable  testimony  of  more  than  mere 
official  countenance.  The  Diary  of  the  Duke  of  Stettin,  dis- 
cussed in  the  next  chapter,  was  clear-cut  declaration.  All  the 
numerous  evidences  in  fact,  a  summary  of  which  is  given  later,1 
thrust  upon  me  conclusions  as  incontrovertible  as  new.  They 
were  a  harmonious  unit  in  revealing  an  official  conduct  of  the 
theatre  hitherto  unguessed. 

Among  other  statements  in  the  Diary  of  the  Duke  o\  Stettin 
is  the  one  that  the  Queen  furnished  these  Children  for  their  the- 
atrical performances  with  a  "superabundance  of  rich  apparel."2 
This  helped  explain  the  paragraph  in  question.  All  the  Queen's 
theatrical  apparel  was  in  the  care  of  the  Yeoman  of  the  Revels 
who,  by  virtue  of  the  letters  patent  of  hi^  appointment,  was  in- 
dependent of  the  Master  of  the  Revels  in  administering  his  office." 

'Infra,   126-29.  of    all     and     singuler     our     Maskes 

'Infra,  in--.-:.   123<-24,I   L78  To'.  Revells  and  disguiseinges  and  alsoe 

"'Wee     doe     ordtyne     constitute  of    the    apparrrll    and    Trappers    of 

and   make   the   same   Edward   Kirk-  all     and     singuler    our     horses     or- 

ham    by    thois    presentea    yeoman   or  deyned    and    appointed    or    hereafter 

keeper  of  our  Vestures  or  apparrell  to   bee  ordeyned   and   appointed    for 


100 


CHILDREN  OF  THE  CHAPEL  AT  BLACKFRIARS 


It  was  he  who  had  charge  over  expenditures  in  the  "setting  out" 
of  plays  at  Court.1  It  was  through  him,  then,  that  this  "super- 
abundance of  rich  apparel"  was  furnished  the  Blackfriars  Chil- 
dren. And  as  the  Queen  maintained  this  division  of  the  Children 
of  the  Chapel  as  actors,  it  was  through  him,  from  some  account 
yet  to  be  discovered,  that  the  weekly  expenditures  were  made. 

"The  said  complainant,"  then,  meant  the  Yeoman  of  the  Rev- 
els, Edward  Kirkham,  who  as  the  Queen's  official  had,  prior  to 
any  personal  connection  with  the  management,  "disbursed  and 
allowed  great  Somes  of  monie"  for  "the  dietting  and  ordering  of 
the  Boyes  vsed  about  the  plaies  there." 

Both  the  expenditures2  and  the  furnishing  of  apparel3  were 
official.  The  possibility  of  surreptitiousness  by  "confederacy" 
or  "conspiracy"  is  precluded  by  the  nature  of  the  case.  Clifton's 
charges  of  illegitimate  conduct  of  the  theatre  under  color  of  au- 
thority, with  his  implication  in  the  word  "others"  by  which  he 


our  iustes  and  Turneys,"  &c.  Also 
he  is  "to  have  and  enioye  one  suf- 
ficient house  or  mansion  as  here- 
after shalbe  assigned  vnto  the  said 
Edward  Kirkham  for  the  suer  bet- 
ter and  safe  keeping  of  our  said 
Vestures  apparrell  and  Trappers," 
&c. — From  the  Patent  creating  Ed- 
ward Kirkham  Yeoman  for  life, 
dated  28  April,  28  Elizabeth  (1586). 
Printed  in  A  Collection  of  Ancient 
Documents  Respecting  the  Office  of 
Master  of  the  Revels,  &c.  (ed.  J.  O. 
Halliwell,  1870.  Only  11  copies 
printed.  No.  11  in  British  Mu- 
seum.) 

xThe  respective  duties  of  the 
Master  and  the  Yeoman  of  the  Rev- 
els are  not  exactly  known.  But  an 
examination  of  the  Revels  Accounts 
indicates  that  the  Yeoman  of  the 
Revels,  agreeable  with  the  Patent, 
had  full  charge  over  purchase  and 
use  of  apparel  required  in  Court 
entertainments,  while  the  Master's 
duties  related  to  the  larger  func- 
tions of  providing  appropriate  en- 
tertainments, plays,  masques,  &c, 
and  especially  for  the  "rehersinge 
and  choise  makinge"  of  plays,  in- 
terludes,    and     masques. — See    Ex- 


tracts from  the  Accounts  of  the 
Revels  at  Court  (ed.  P.  Cunning- 
ham, Shakesp.  Soc.  Pub.,  1842), 
passim.  Cunningham  here  gives 
only  part  of  the  accounts.  See  fur- 
ther the  original  documents,  u.  %., 
1011. 

Expenditures  for  board  and 
lodging  of  children-actors  through- 
out the  year  are  new  to  the  close 
of  Elizabeth's  reign.  But  tempo- 
rary board  and  lodging  for  several 
days  at  a  time  were  given  different 
sets  of  children  during  their  re- 
hearsals and  on  their  journeyings 
to  and  from  the  place  of  acting,  as 
shown  by  various  items  in  the  ac- 
counts relating  to  such.  See  for 
example  under  year  1573, 

"Item  for  the  diettw  &  Lodging 
of  dyvers  childre  at  saint  Jones 
whiles  thay  Learned  theier  partes  & 
Jestures  meete  for  the  Mask  in  wch 
ix  of  them   did   serve  at  Hampton 

Coorte   xxxiij3  iiijd." 

— Extracts,  from  the  Accounts  of 
the  Revels  at  Court  (ed.  P.  Cun- 
ningham, 5".  S.  Pub.,  1842),  73. 
Here  the  amount  would  indicate 
about  ten  days  maintenance. 

'Infra,  106-7,  178. 


MAINTENANCE  OF  THE  CHILDREN 


1U1 


seems  to  mean  at  least  the  Yeoman  of  the  Revels,  have  no  basis 
in  fact.  It  is  not  certain  to  what  account  these  expenditures 
were  charged.  It  they  went  through  the  Office  of  the  Revels 
the)  passed  under  the  signatures  of  Kirkham  and  the  Master  of 
the  Revels,  Ed.  Tilney,  thence  to  the  Audit  (  >ffice  where  they 
were  allowed.  <  >r  if  they  passed  through  any  other  office  or  set 
of  accounts,  the  amounts  in  any  case  had  to  be  allowed  in  like 
manner  b\    —me  official  near  the  Queen.1 

Such  expenditure  as  also  the  furnishing  of  apparel  and  the  fact 
of  allowing  the  Children  to  act  in  her  name,  to  say  nothing  of 
the  grants  to  <  ryles  and  Evans  and  the  attendance  of  Queen  and 
Court  at  the  theatre,  settles  the  conduct  of  the  Blackfriars  as  be- 
in-  under  the  knowledge  and  sanction  of  Queen  Elizabeth. 

Additional  proof  of  the  official  conduct  of  the  theatre  is  con- 
tained in  Clifton's  own  statement  of  its  surreptitiousness,  which 
is  here  added. - 

Standing  alone  this  would  not  be  valuable  testimony.     But  it  is 


'The  discovery  of  the  record 
containing  these  allowances  would 
be  a  valuable  contribution  to 
Elizabethan-Jacobean  stage-history. 
Among  the  records  of  the  Office  of 
the  Revels  preserved  at  the  Public 
Record  Office,  from  which  Mr.  P. 
Cunningham  published  merely  Ex- 
tracts (».  s.,  100s)  and  some  of 
them  incorrectly,  are  Declared  Ac- 
counts, Audit  Office,  Bundle  2045- 
8046,  years  L573-1670;  and  Declared 
Accounts  of  the  Pipe  Office,  Roll 
years  1603-38.  I  have  gone 
through  these  with  hope  of  some 
evidence.  But  in  both  sets  of  ac- 
counts the  records  of  Oct.  31,  l"'ss  - 
Oct.  31,  L603  are  wanting.  There 
are  numerous  other  gaps  in  tin-  rec 

on!-.      I   have  likewise  examined   the 

■<nts  of  the  Exchequer  and  the 
Queen's  Household  Accounts  with- 
out   result--. 

Tin-  working  out  of  the  vast  field 

Of     the     Revels     1     havr     hern     glad     to 

leave  to  a  fellow-researcher,  Pro- 
fessor A  Feuilleral  of  the  Univer- 
sit \  of  Ri ,!'''  3,  France,  who  f<  * 
has  been  collectii 
Is  ami  documents  of  the  <  iffice 
of    the    keveU    in    this    period    for 


publication.  Prof.  Feuillerat  tells 
me  he  has  found  no  account  among 
these  records  that  might  cover  such 
expenses  as  were  incurred  in  main- 
taining the  Children  of  the  Chapel 
at  I '.lack friars.  But  there  are  other 
of  accounts  yet  to  be 
searched. 

""But  soe  yt  is,  moste  excellent 
Soveraigne,  that  the  said  Nathaniel] 
Gyles,  confederating  himself  w,h 
one  James  Robinson,  Henry  Evans, 
&  others  yet  vnto  your  ma"""  said 
subiecte  vnknowne  howe  I  who], 
by  cullour  of  your  ma""  said  let- 
ters patents  &  the  trust  by  your 
highnes  therby  to  him  the  said 
Nathaniel]  Gyles  committed, 
oiiring,  conspiring  &  complotting 
howe  to  oppresse  diuers  of  your 
matlM  humble  &   faythfull  subiects, 

&    therby    to    make    vnto    themselves 

an  vnlawfull  gayne  and  benefitt, 
they  the  said  confederates  devysed, 
red  &  concluded,  for  theire 
owne  conrupte  gayneand  lucre,  to 
errecte,  sett  vpp,  furnish  and  mayn- 
teyne   a   play    house  or   place   in   the 

Clifton's  Complaint, 

(,  I'..    127. 


102  CHILDREN  OF  THE  CHAPEL  AT  BLACKFRIARS 

in  harmony  with  all  other  evidences.  Clifton  says  here  that  under 
color  of  the  Commission  to  Gyles  the  theatre  was  set  up,  fur- 
nished, and  maintained.  With  the  malignity  pared  away,  this 
can  mean  but  one  thing, — that  the  establishment  and  furnishing 
of  the  theatre  and  the  maintenance  of  the  Children  taken  there 
was  under  official  sanction. 

Other  declarations  in  Clifton's  Complaint  are  cited  elsewhere1 
as  showing  the  unwitting  admission  of  the  same  fact. 

Kirkham's  intimate  and  official  connection  with  the  Blackfriars 
theatre  prior  to  1602  explains  why  after  the  Star  Chamber  De- 
cree he  and  associates,  having  apparently  secured  concessions  to 
themselves,  came  to  Evans  and  "ernestly  labored  wth  and  en- 
treated" him  "that  he  .  .  .  would  surfer  them  to  have  and  enioye 
some  part  of  the  demised  premises  wherevppon  it  was  agreed  and 
concluded."2 

The  50  /.  bond  referred  to  in  Evans's  paragraph  was  an  essen- 
tial part  of  this  "agreement  and  conclusion"  as  a  guarantee  for 
the  payment  of  the  "eight  shillings."  The  "eight  shillings"  pro- 
vision is  important  here  not  for  itself,  but  insofar  as  it  shows  the 
"ordering"  of  the  boys  after  the  1602  Articles.  This  comes  out 
more  clearly  in  Evans's  paragraph  than  in  the  bond  itself,  which 
is  here  inserted.3 

x  Supra,  79-81;  infra,  126.  ten  when  &  soe  often  as  anye  en- 

2  See  supra,  881.  terludes    plaies    or    showes    shalbe 

3  (The  more  difficult  abbrevia-  playde  vsed  showed  or  published  in 
tions  to  put  into  type  are  expanded  the  greate  hall  and  other  the 
into  italics.)  The  suit  in  which  Roomes  scituat  in  the  Blackfriers 
this  document  is  enrolled  occurred  london  or  any  parte  thereof  men- 
under  James  I.  Hence  the  date  is  cj'oned  to  be  demysed  by  one  Rich- 
given  as  "vicesimo  die  Aprilis  Anno  ard  Burbage  gentleman  to  the  with- 
regni  dominae  Elizabeth  nup^r  Re-  in  named  Henry  Evans  in  and  by 
ginae  Angliae  quadragesimo  quar-  one  Indenture  of  lease  bearinge  date 
to," — the  day  on  which  the  Articles  the  second  daye  of  September  in 
and  the  200  /.  bond  (supra,  88-92)  the  twoe  &  fortith  yere  of  the  raigne 
were  signed.  of  our   Sou^reigne   ladye   Elizabeth 

the  Queenes  Maiestie  that  nowe  ys 

The  Condidon  of  this  obligadon  or  els  where  by  the  children  or  any 

ys  suche  That  yf  the  within  bound-  called  by  the  name  of  the  children 

en  Wilh'am  Rastell  Edwarde  Kirk-  of    the    queenes    Maieste-y    Chappell 

ham   and   Thomas    Kendall   or  any  or  by  any  other  children  which  by 

of  them  theire  or  any  of  theire  ex-  the   consent   of   the   sayde    William 

ecutors    administrators    or    assignes  Edward    Thomas    Henrie    and    one 

everye  weeke  weekly  on  Saturdaye  Alexander        Hawkins       gentleman 

duringe  the  space  of  fifteene  yeres  theire   executors   or   Administrators 

next  ensuinge  the  date  within  writ-  or   any   three   of  them    wherof   the 


MAINTENANCE  OF  THE  CHILDREN 


103 


The  bond  is  peculiar  in  that  it  does  not  state  why  the  sum  of 
eight  shillings  weekly  is  to  be  paid.  The  fact  that  the  consider- 
ation is  left  out  may  not  be  highly  significant.  But  may  it  be  be- 
cause there  was  the  sense  of  the  need  of  noncommittal  on  a  vital 
point  in  this  circumvention  of  the  Star  Chamber  order? 

So  long  as  Evans  conducted  the  theatre  alone  the  problem  was 
simple.  He  and  his  family  lived  in  apartments  or  chambers  there, 
and  the  Boys  were  boarded  and  lodged  by  him,  allowances  there- 
for being  made  through  the  Yeoman  of  the  Revels,  as  above.1 
But  in  the  new  arrangement  under  the  1602  Articles,  Evans,  al- 
though still  retaining  the  lease  and  maintaining  chief  control,  did 
not  dare  be  known  in  the  management.  Hence  special  provision 
had  to  be  made  for  this  feature.  The  Boys  were  still  kept  at 
Blackfriars  at  the  Queen's  charge,  but  under  the  "direction"  of 
the  new  partners.  So  Evans  was  allowed  as  a  part  of  the  agree- 
ment eight  shillings  a  week,  presumably  for  stewardship  over  the 
Boys,   rehearsals,  and  other  duties  of  theatrical    management.2 


saide  Henrie  or  Alexander  theire 
Executors  or  Administrators  to  be 
one  shalbe  dyetted  kepte  or  re- 
tayned  for  the  exercize  of  the  saide 
enterludes  or  playes  doe  and  shall 
well  &  trewlie  paye  or  cause  to  be 
paide  vnto  the  saide  Henrie  Evans 
his  Executors  or  assignes  att  or  in 
the  saide  greate  hall  the  somwe  of 
eighte  shillinges  of  lawfull  money 
of  England  The  first  payment 
thereof  to  begynne  and  to  be  made 
on  Saturdaye  beinge  the  fower  & 
twenteth  daye  next  commynge  of 
this  instant  Moneth  of  Aprill  with- 
in   written    That    then    this    present 

icton  to  be  voide  &  of  none 
effect  Or  els  yt  to  stande  in  full 
force  and  vertue. — For  document  in 
extenso    from    which    this    is    taken, 

tmplete  work.  vol.  III. 

'Supra,  40-41,   71-74.   99-100. 

"Tins  amounts  in  present  money 
to  approximately  three  or  four 
pounds  weekly.  It  is  nearly  twice 
as  large  a  salary  as  Kirkham  was 
allowed  by  the  Queen  as  Yeoman 
of  the  Revels,  He  was  to  receive 
hut  "Sixpence  by  the  Day,"  besides 
house-renl  and  perquisites  of  his 
office. — See   Patent  to  him  28  April, 


28  Elizabeth,  in  op.  cit.,  u.  s.,  99*. 
Also,  in  the  same  publication  by 
Halliwell.  pp.  2-3,  see  Patent  to 
"Edmundo  Tilney"  as  Master  of  the 
Revels  for  life  from  24  July,  21 
Elizabeth  [1579],  at  a  salary  of  10/. 
per  annum.  Of  course  he  too,  as 
we  know  from  other  sources,  had 
house-rent  and  the  perquisites  of 
his  office.  But  the  actual  cash  sal- 
ary to  him  was  less  than  to  Evans 
in   the  present  case. 

A  still  more  suggestive  contem- 
porary item  on  salary  may  here  be 
appended.  In  1610  one  John  Fletch- 
er was  sued  by  the  brewery  firm 
of  Rolfe  &  Thurgood  for  breach 
of  contract.  Fletcher  was  hired  as 
"clerk  of  the  drays,"  his  duties  be- 
ing that  of  solicitor,  collector,  and 
general  overseer  of  their  beer-prod- 
uct. The  point  of  interest  here  is 
that  li is  contract  provides  that  he 
shall  bo  paid  "tin-  some  of  eight 
shillings  of  lawful!  money  of  Eng- 
land every  Saturday  weekelv  dur- 
ing the  tyme  of  his  service  for  and 
in  respect  of  his  sallarie  or  wages." 

Public  Rec  ird  Office,  Court  of 
King?3  Bench,  Hilary,  s  James  I, 
membrane    mccii. 


104  CHILDREN  OF  THE  CHAPEL  AT  BLACKFRIARS 

Kirkham  as  Yeoman  of  the  Revels  would  of  course  and  did  con- 
tinue1 to  make  disbursements  and  allowances  "weekly,"  not  to 
Evans,  but  to  himself  and  partners  who  in  turn  were  to  pay 
Evans  as  a  private  not  an  official  arrangement.  For  this  pay- 
ment of  eight  shillings  they  gave  Evans  the  50/.  bond  just 
quoted.2  How  long  they  kept  up  the  payment,  and  what  came  of 
the  bond  will  be  noticed  later.3 

This  brief  paragraph  by  Evans,  treated  in  the  present  chapter, 
insofar  as  it  shows  the  official  conduct  of  the  theatre,  is  one  of  the 
most  important  parts  of  all  the  eleven  documents  in  the  two 
Chancery  suits  brought  to  light  by  Mr.  Greenstreet.4 

Five  months  after  the  new  arrangements  in  management  the 
Children  of  the  Chapel  at  Blackfriars  were  still  acting  with  re- 
markable popularity,  and  were  still  being  abundantly  provided 
for  by  the  Queen.  Not  only  this  is  made  clear  from  the  record 
next  to  be  examined  but  also  how  extensive  the  Queen's  require- 
ments were  in  the  matter  cf  their  training  and  how  the  new 
management  was  carrying  out  her  provisions. 

'Cf.   infra,   106-7,   123-24,   178-79,  the  said  Rastall  or  Kendall,  or  one 

184.  of  them;   and  likwise  for  the  con- 

2The     paragraph     in     Kirkham's  siderac[ion]    of    52/.    X.  s.    paid    to 

Bill  of  Complaint,  to  which  Evans's  the  said   Evans   by  the   said   Haw- 

"eight  shillings"  paragraph  is  a  re-  kins"  [cf.  infra,  ibid]. — G.-F.,  225a. 
ply,    becomes    clear    in    the    present  3See     under     "Children     of     the 

connection      and      may      here      be  Queen's  Revels  at  Blackfriars,  1603- 

quoted: —  1608"   in  complete  work,  vol.   I. 

"And  for  further  consideracion  4The  paragraph  was  omitted  by 
of  said  agreem1  [1602]  the  said  the  discoverer,  Mr.  James  Green- 
Evans,  his  executors  and  assignes,  street,  from  the  running  extracts  in 
was  weekly  to  receive  of  your  said  The  Athenaeum,  April  21,  1S88,  509. 
orator,  the  said  Rastall  and  Ken-  A  note  by  the  editor  says  that  the 
dall,  and  the  survivour  of  them,  omissions  are  unimportant.  But  un- 
and  of  the  executors  of  the  sur-  fortunately  some  of  the  most  im- 
vivors  of  them,  the  somme  of  eight  portant  parts  are  in  the  omissions, 
shillinges  weekely  duringe  the  saide  this  among  them.  F.  G.  Fleay,  op. 
terme,  the  which  somme  was  paid  cit.,  210-51,  printed  all  eleven  docu- 
to  the  said  Evans  accordingly  [cf.  ments  in  extenso  from  Mr.  Green- 
infra,    1043]    by    your    said    orator,  street's  transcripts. 


CHAPTER   IX 

STATUS   OF  THE    BLACKFRIARS   (  i  IILDREN.— THE   QUEEN'S 
REQUIREMENTS 

(  >ne  of  the  most  valuable  documents  yet  discovered  in  revealing 
the  relations  of  Queen  Elizabeth  to  the  setting  up  and  maintenance 
of  her  Chapel  Children  as  actors  at  Blackfriars,  as  well  as  illu- 
minating their  whole  history,  consists  of  two  paragraphs  in  the 
Diary  of  Philipp  Julius,  Duke  of  Stettin-I'omerania,  under  date 
of  September  l8,  1602.  The  statements  there,  taken  with  the 
documents  and  evidences  offered  in  other  chapters,  change  all 
previous  conceptions  not  only  of  this  company  and  the  I'dack- 
friars  theatre,  but  also  of  the  relations  of  the  children-companies 
under  Elizabeth  and  James  to  the  dramatic  and  theatrical  history 
of  the  times. 

A  word  therefore  seems  necessary  on  the  value  of  the  present 
record  as  evidence.  Minor  but  essential  details  I  subjoin  in  a 
note.1  Other  considerations  throwing  light  upon  the  present 
history  follow  the  quoted  record. 

'Philip  Julius,   Duke  of   Stettin-  Philippi  Gulii  Herzogen  zu  Stettin, 

Pomerania,     Prussia,     in     his    eigh-  Pommcrn,        etc..        Reise        durch 

teenth  year    (1602)    was   sent  on   a  Deutschland,  Engelland,  und  Italien, 

grand    tour    of    the    chief   states    of  1602. 

Europe    for    the    purpose    of    com-  The    MS.    of    this    Diary    is    now 

pleting   his    education,    shaping   his  in    the    library    of    Count    von    der 

character,  and  preparing  him  for  the  Osten    of    Plathe.    Pomerania,    and 

duties    of    government    in    his    own  has   never  yet  been   fullj 

country.      One      of      the      important  Only    a    part    of    it    is    the    original 

members  of  his  retinue  was   Fred-  MS.,     according     to    the    doubtful 

eric  Gerschow,   former  tutor  to  the  statement  of  the  recent   publishers. 

Duke,  and  later   (1605  35)    Profes-  In    1892,   Dr.  Gottfried  von    B 

•    Law    at    the    University   of  Superintendent    of    the    Royal    Ar- 

.vald.     In  accordance  with  the  chives    in    Stettin,   assisted    by    Mr. 

Duke's  command  to  write  down  ac-  Wilfred    Powell.    Enj                   sul   in 

curately,    day    by    day,    everything  Stettin,    published    in    Transactions 

they  saw  or  heard  on  the  journey,  of    the    Royal    Hii 

how  kepi  a  careful  diary  from  (New    Series,    1892),    VI,    1-67,   all 

the  daj   of  departure,  Feb.   1.   1602,  that    part    of   the    Diary    pertaining 

to  the  day  of  return,  under  the  head-  to  the  journey  in    England     They 

ing: —  give    also    an    English    translation 

Der      Durchlauchtigsten     Herrn  page  for  page  with  the  Germai 


106 


CHILDREN  OF  THE  CHAPEL  AT  BLACKFRIARS 


The  original  record  runs  as  follows:1 

"18.  [Sept.,  Samstag,  1602]  .  .  .  Von  dannen  [i.  e.,  von 
einer  Kunstkammer]  sind  wir  auf  die  Kinder-comoediam  gangen, 
welche  im  Argument  iudiciret  eine  castam  viduam,  war  eine  his- 
toria  einer  koniglichen  Wittwe  aus  Engellandt.  Es  hat  aber  mit 
dieser  Kinder-comoedia  die  Gelegenheit:  die  Konigin  halt  viel 
junger  Knaben,  die  sich  der  Singekunst  mit  Ernst  befleissigen 
miissen  und  auf  alien  Instrumenten  lernen,  auch  dabenebenst 
studieren.  Diese  Knaben  haben  ihre  besondere  praeceptores  in 
alien  Kiinsten,  insonderheit  sehr  gute  musicos. 

Damit  sie  nun  hofliche  Sitten  anwenden,  ist  ihnen  aufgelegt, 
wochentlich  eine  comoedia  zu  agiren,  wozu  ihnen  denn  die  Konig- 
in ein  sonderlich  theatrum  erbauet  und  mit  kostlichen  Kleidern 
zum  Ueberfluss  versorget  hat.    Wer  solcher  Action  zusehen  will, 


From  this  portion  of  the  Diary 
we  learn  that  the  Duke  and  retinue 
landed  at  Dover  Friday,  Sept.  10, 
1602,  and  reached  London  on  the 
12th  where  they  remained  eight 
days.  They  spent  the  next  two 
weeks  in  the  country,  including  /is- 
its  to  Cambridge  and  Oxford,  and 
finally  sailed  from  Dover  for  Calais 
Oct.  3  on  a  Man  of  War  specially 
provided  by   Queen  Elizabeth. 

During  this  three-weeks  visit  in 
England,  they  met  the  leading  of- 
ficials, statesmen,  and  scholars,  and 
had  every  facility  for  learning  facts 
recorded.  Friday,  Sept.  17,  they 
dined  with  the  Lord  Mayor  of  Lon- 
don. On  the  same  day  in  the  after- 
noon they  were  entertained  at  the 
Royal  Palace,  Whitehall,  though  the 
Queen  was  absent,  and  were  shown 
into  the  privacies  of  her  Majesty, — 
her  library,  bedroom,  prayer-book 
written  in  her  own  hand,  &c,  &c. 
Those  who  entertained  them,  though 
not  named,  must  have  been  officials 
close  to  the  Queen. 

On  the  following  day,  Saturday, 
Sept.  18,  they  went  to  the  Chil- 
dren's theatre  at  Blackfriars,  and 
Gerschow  wrote  down  the  two  par- 
agraphs  concerning  it. 

'From  Transactions  of  the  Royal 
Historical     Society     (New     Series, 


1892),   VI,   26,   28. 

The  editors  publish  an  English 
translation  on  parallel  pages.  But 
as  they  certainly  missed  the  mean- 
ing in  places,  I  offer  the  follow- 
ing :— 

18  [Sept.,  Saturday,  1602]  .  .  . 
From  there  [*.  e.,  from  an  Art-mu- 
seum] we  went  to  the  play  at  the 
Children's  Theatre,  which  in  its 
plot  deals  with  a  chaste  widow.  It 
was  the  story  of  a  royal  widow  of 
England. 

— -But  with  reference  to  this  Chil- 
dren's Theatre  this  is  the  state  of 
affairs :  The  Queen  maintains  a 
number  of  young  boys  who  are  re- 
quired to  devote  themselves  ear- 
nestly to  the  art  of  singing,  and 
to  learn  to  perform  on  various  sorts 
of  musical  instruments,  also  at  the 
same  time  to  carry  on  their  studies. 
These  boys  have  their  special  pre- 
ceptors in  all  the  various  arts,  and 
in  particular  excellent  instructors 
in  music. 

Now,  in  order  that  they  may 
practice  courtly  manners,  it  is  re- 
quired of  them  to  act  a  play  every 
week,  for  which  purpose  indeed  the 
Queen  has  established  for  them  a 
special  theatre  and  has  provided 
them  with  a  superabundance  of  rich 
apparel. 


THE  QUEEN'S  REQUIREMENTS 


1U7 


muss  so  gut  als  unserer  Munze  acht  sundische  Schillings  geben, 
unci  findet  sich  doch  stets  vicl  Volks  auch  viele  ehrbare  Fraueus, 
weil  nutze  argumenta  und  viele  schone  Lehren,  als  von  andern 
berichtet,  sollen  tractiret  werden ;  alle  bey  Lichte  agiret,  welches 
ein  gross  Ansehen  macht.  Eine  ganze  Stunde  vorher  horet  man 
eine  kostliche  musicam  instrumentalem  von  Orgeln,  Lauten,  Pan- 
doren,  Mandoren,  Geigen  und  Pfeiffen,  wie  denn  damahlen  ein 
Knabe  cum  voce  tremula  in  einer  Basgeigen  so  lieblich  gesungen, 
dass  wo  es  die  Xonnen  zu  Mailand  ihnen  nicht  vorgethan,  wir 
seines  Gleichen  auf  der  Reise  nicht  gehoret  hatten." 

This  document  is  here  given  for  the  first  time  in  its  relation 
to  the  Children  of  the  Chapel  at  Blackfriars,1  and  is  as  new  in 
its  significance  to  dramatic  and  stage  history  as  if  it  had  never 
before  been  printed.  All  details  so  fit  into  the  history  of  the  Chil- 
dren of  the  Chapel  at  Blackfriars  that  any  attempt  at  demon- 
strating the  identity  would  be  gratuitous.2 


Whoever  wishes  to  be  a  specta- 
tor at  one  of  their  performances 
must  pay  as  much  as  eight  shill- 
ings of  our  [Pomeranian]  coinage 
[ca.  12  d.].  And  yet  there  is  al- 
ways present  a  large  audience,  in- 
cluding many  respectable  women, 
because  entertaining  plot-develop- 
ments and  many  excellent  teach- 
ings, as  we  were  informed  by  oth- 
er-, are  expected  to  be  presented. 

All  their  performances  are  acted 
by  candle-light,  which  nroduces  a 
fine   spectacular  effect. 

For  a  whole  hour  preceding  the 
play  one  listens  to  a  delightful  mu- 
sical entertainment  on  organs,  lutes, 
pandorins,  mandolins,  violins  and 
as  "ii  the  present  occasion, 
■i.  when  a  boy  cum  voce  t  rein- 
ing so  charmingly  to  the  ac- 
companimenl  of  '>1  that  un- 

less possibly  the  nun-  at  Milan  may 
have  excelled  him,  we  had  not  heard 
his  equal   Of]  our   iournev. 

lDr.     A.     W.     Ward,     History 

nglish      Dramatic      Literature 

.1.   453,   discussing  the  im- 

icnt  <>f  children   for  the  choir 

of    St.    Paul's    by    royal    warrant    of 


1585  (cf.  supra,  67s),  subjoins 
a  translation  of  this  document. 
While  admitting  he  anticipates  the 
date  rather  too  much,  lie  neverthe- 
less holds  the  "curious  passage"  to 
be  illustrative  of  the  Paul's  plays 
of  1585!!  But  Dr.  Ward  makes 
no  special  claim  to  a  knowledge  of 
stage-history,  depending  very  frank- 
ly in  such  matters  mainly  upon  the 
Rev.  Mr.  Fleay.  except  where,  as 
here,  Fleay  has  not  written.  Had 
he  given  the  subject  personal  in- 
vestigation, he  would  have  seen  that 
this  Diary  has  nothing  to  do  with 
Paul's  even  in  1602,  much  less  sev- 
enteen years   earlier. 

2  Numerous  commentator-  and 
reviewers  have  seen  that  this  record 
meant  the  Queen's  Children,  for  the 
document  says  thus  much.  But  no 
one  of  them  has  recognized  that  it 
meant  the  famous  organization  of 
the  Children  of  the  Chapel  at  Black- 
friars. No  analysis  of  it-  historical 
relations  has  hitherto  been  made, 
and  no  statement  of  its  significance 
!-  a  single  sentence  The  rec- 
ognition and  analysis  of  its  value 
is   confined   to   the  adjectives,   "cu- 


108 


CHILDREN  OF  THE  CHAPEL  AT  BLACKFRIARS 


Much  of  the  document  by  its  clear-cut  authoritative  declara- 
tion substantiates  conditions  already  examined.  A  few  items  are 
found  in  no  other  record.  These  so  harmonize  with  the  entire 
history  and  so  substantiate  logical  conclusions  and  are  so  sup- 
ported by  certain  conditions  that  the  authoritativeness  of  the  rec- 
ord on  the  whole  may  be  regarded  as  final. 

Other  considerations  are  significant,  strongly  suggesting  con- 
ditions not  declared  outright  in  any  document. 

The  Duke  and  his  retinue  visited  the  Blackfriars  the  next  day 
after  dining  with  the  Lord  Mayor  and  being  entertained  at  the 
Queen's  Palace  at  Whitehall.  Gerschow  wrote  a  brief  history 
and  description  of  this  Children's  theatre,  while  in  the  case  of 
two  plays  seen  at  the  public  theatres  he  passes  them  with  bare 
mention, — one,  no  doubt  at  the  Globe,  with  two  lines  -,1  the  other, 


rious."  "remarkable,"  "auffallend," 
"merkwiirdig,"   and  "wertvoll." 

Herman  Hager  in  Englische  Stu- 
dien  (1S93),  XVIII,  315,  reprints 
the  English  translation  from  Trans- 
actions of  the  Royal  Historical  So- 
ciety (u.  s.,  1061).  After  quoting 
from  F.  G.  Fleay,  A  Chronicle  His- 
tory of  the  London  Stage  (1890), 
125,  133,  on  the  place  of  acting  by 
the  Children  of  the  Chapel  and  by 
Paul's  Boys,  he  concludes,  "I  can- 
not find  any  reference  to  a  theatre 
specially  built  for  such  a  company 
by  the  Queen." 

Since  its  first  appearance  in  the 
parallel  German-English  publication 
in  Transactions  of  the  Royal  His- 
torical Society  (m.  s.,  1061),  the 
German  has  been  printed  again 
from  the  original  MS.  by  Professor 
Binz,  of  the  University  of  Basel, 
in  Beilage  zur  Allgemcincn  Zeitung 
(Miinchen,  Aug.  23,  1902).  Dr. 
Binz  erred  in  giving  this  out  "als 
ein  ineditum."  He  prefaces  his 
print  of  it  by  a  single  generalizing 
sentence,  but  gives  no  hint  as  to  the 
contributive  value  of  the  document. 

C.  F.  Meyer  in  an  article  Eng- 
lische Konwdianten  am  Hofe  Phil- 
ipp  Julius  von  Pommern-Wolgast, 
published  in  Jahrbuch  der  Deutsch- 
en  Shakcspeare-Gesellschaft  (1902), 
XXXVIII,     196-211,     reprints     the 


document  but  says  nothing  of  its 
significance. 

Edward  Engle,  Shakespeare  in 
Pommern,  in  National-Zeitung 
(Berlin,  Sept.  27,  1902),  reviewing 
Meyers's  article  (u.  s.),  again 
prints  the  document.  He  regrets 
that  the  Duke  of  Stettin  did  not 
instead  attend  the  Globe. — Which 
however  he  certainly  did  do.  Be- 
sides recognizing  it  as  "einen  wert- 
vollen  Beitrag,"  Engle  says  no  word 
on  its  value. 

Numerous  other  publications 
have  given  the  matter  mention. 

la13  [Sept.  1602].— Den  13.  ward 
eine  comedia  agirt,  wie  Stuhl-Weis- 
senburg  erstlich  von  den  Ttirken 
hernacher  von  den  Christen  wie- 
derum  erobert." — From  the  Diary  in 
Transactions  of  the  Royal  Histori- 
cal Society  (New  Series,  1892), 
VI,   6. 

As  the  visitors  had  all  opportu- 
nity to  inform  themselves,  and  also 
saw  the  chief  sights  of  London, — 
the  Temple,  Exchange,  Tower, 
Westminster,  St.  Paul's,  Whitehall, 
&c, — there  is  reason  to  conclude 
that  they  visited,  not  the  minor,  but 
the  chief  theatres.  The  Globe  and 
the  Fortune  were  the  two  public 
theatres  of  chief  importance  in  1602. 
On  the  14th,  the  company  attended 
a  play  at  the  Fortune   («.  *.,  1091). 


THE  QUEEN'S  REQUIREMENTS 


low 


the  play  of  Samson  at  the  Fortune,  with  a  line  and  a  half.1  A 
bear-  and  bull-fight,  of  course  at  the  Dear  Garden,  gets  four 
lines. 

With  no  other  evidence  than  the  comparative  length  of  notices 
given  to  Blackfriars  on  the  one  side  and  the  Globe,  Fortune,  and 
Bear  Garden  on  the  oilier,  we  should  be  justified  in  concluding 
the  relative  weight  of  impressions  the  visitors  carried  home  with 
them.  I  hit  the  important  evidence  more  than  bearing  out  this 
conclusion  is  the  action  taken  by  the  Duke  in  establishing  a  the- 
atre at  his  own  court  shortly  after  returning  to  Germany. 

In  1 004  Duke  Philip  was  declared  of  age,  and  took  charge  of 
the  government  of  the  dukedom  of  Pommern-Wolgast.  Within 
two  years  we  find  a  theatre  of  "etliche  unci  zwantzig  Englamkr"- 
establidied  and  maintained  at  his  court  at  heavy  expense.3 

It  seems  unlikely  that  this  company  traveled,  as  other  English 
actors  in  Germany  did.     There  is  no  evidence  of  it.     Nor  do  we- 


lt is  hardly  likely  that  they  visited 
the  same  theatre  twice.  They  were 
doing  tin'  sights.  There  is  no 
known  case  of  repetition  on  the 
whole  journey.  So  I  take  it  as 
practically  certain  that  this  notice 
of  their  first  visit  to  a  theatre  re- 
fers to  the  more  famous  Globe.  If 
the  play  they  saw  could  be  identi- 
fied, that  would  probably  make  the 
conclusion   final. 

"14  [Sept.  1G02].—  Auf  den 
Nachmittag  ward  cine  tragica  co- 
moedia  vom  Samsone  und  dem 
halben  Stamm  Benjamin  agirt." — 
Idem,  VI.  10. 

The  play  of  Sampson  was  then 
new.  It  is  identified  by  the  fol- 
lowing: — 

"Lent  vnto  Samwell  Rowley  & 
edwarde  Jewbe  to  pave   for  the 
of    Samson    the    29    of 
Julye   L602  the  some  of.  .  .vi"  " 
— Henslowe's    Diary    (e&    \V.    W. 
.   L904),   LI 
This  play  was  never  published. 
mpson.     Play,     by     Edward 
Jubye,  d    by    Samuel    Row- 

V-to!    in    L602.      \' .    I ' 
'.  iker.     Biographia    Dramatica 
(1812) ,    II.    ! 
Jewby  belonged  to  the  company 


playing  at  the  Fortune,  in  which 
Henslowe  was  interested. 

It  is  therefore  established  that 
the  visitors  attended  the  Fortune 
Sept.    14,    1602. 

2  See  full  notice  in  Hausbuch  des 
Horn  Joachim  von  Wedel  auf 
Krempzoiv  Schloss  und  Blumbcrg 
sessen,  first  published  by  J. 
von  Bohlen  Bohlendorf  in  Die  Bib- 
liothek  des  Litterarischcn  Vereins 
in  Stuttgart  (1882),  CLXI.  :.:::.. 
Quoted  by  C.  F.  Meyer  in  Shake- 
speare-Jahrbuch  (1902),  XXXVIII, 

199. 

3The  establishment  of  the  thea- 
tre, particularly  the  purpose  on  a 
festival  court  occasion  to  ad  in  the 
church  at  Loitz,  the  home  of  the 
Duke's  mother,  roused  the  Court 
Preacher,  Gregorius  Hagius,  to 
strenuous  opposition.  Of  seven  let- 
ters written  by  Hagius  to  the  Puke 
and  his  mother  between  the  25 
and  28  of  August,  1606,  three  are 
pre-erved.         Th.  \       are      published 

in    Shakespeare  -  J ahrbuch     < 
XXXVIII,  F   Meyer, 

and  make  a  contribution  more  val- 
uable. I  think,  than  even  Heir 
Meyer   believed 


no 


CHILDREN  OF  THE  CHAPEL  AT  BLACKFRIARS 


know  how  long  it  was  maintained.  But  judging  from  the  infor- 
mation at  hand,  it  seems  different  from  any  other  English  troop 
in  Germany,  as  a  brief  notice  may  suffice  to  show.1 

The  first  English  company  of  actors  came  to  Germany  under 
Robert  Brown2  in  1592.  This  organization  developed  by  segre- 
gations and  accretions  into  other  companies. 

In  1594  one  of  these  player-troops  received  the  patronage  of 
Landgraf  Moritz  von  Hessen-Cassel.  Another,  possibly  about 
the  same  time,  was  patronized  by  Herzog  Heinrich  Julius  von 
Braunschweig,  who  himself  through  influence  of  English  actors 
was  stirred  to  write  ten  dramas.  In  1604  another  company  was 
patronized  by  Markgraf  Christian  von  Brandenburg.  These  com- 
panies for  several  years  and  their  offsprings  for  three-quarters 
of  a  century  wandered  over  Germany  presenting  English  plays 
or  plays  modeled  after  them,  on  the  market  square,  in  the  town 
hall,  or  other  temporary  place,  and  laid  the  foundations  for  the 
modern  German  theatre  and  drama.3 


1  Conclusions  on  the  English  act- 
ors in  Germany  in  the  paragraphs 
here,  and  later  under  the  Children 
of  the  Queen's  Revels  at  White- 
friars,  are  based  upon  an  examina- 
tion of  the  original  documents  as 
published  in  the  following: — 
— Albert  Cohn,  Shakespeare  in 
Germany  (1865). — Karl  Goedeke, 
Grundriss  zur  Geschichte  der 
Deutschen  Dichtung  (2  Auflage, 
1SS6),  II,  524-42  (Materials  assem- 
bled in  chronological  order) . — Archiv 
fiir  Litteratur -geschichte,  XIII -XV 
(Trautmann  ;  Criiger). — Jahrbuch 
der  Deutschen  Shakespeare  Gesell- 
schaft,  XVIII  (Menzel)  ;  XIX 
(Meissner)  ;  XXI  (Cohn)  ;  XXIII 
(Bolte)  ;  XXXVIII  (Meyer).— E. 
Menzel,  Geschichte  der  Schauspiel- 
kunst  in  Frankfurt  (1882). — Jo- 
hannes Meissner,  Die  Englischen 
Komodianten  cur  Zeit  Shakespeares 
in  Ocstcrreich  (Diss.  Wien,  1884). 
— W.  Creizenach,  Die  Schauspiele 
der  Englischen  Komodianten.  Ein- 
leitung.  (J.  Kiirschner's  Deutsche 
National-Littcratur,  XXIII,  1889). 
—  Zeitschrift  fiir  Ver^leichende 
Litteraturgeschichte      und      Renais- 


sance Litteratur  (Neue  Folge.  Ber- 
lin.), I,  (Konneke);  VII,  (Traut- 
mann).—  Emil  Herz,  Englische 
Schauspiele  und  Englisches  Schau- 
spiel  zur  Zeit  Shakespeares  in 
Deutschland  (Teil  I,  Diss.  Bonn, 
1901.  Vollstangige  Arbeit  in 
Litzmann's  Theatergeschichtliche 
Forschungen,  Heft  XVIII,  1903). 

2  As  Brown,  Kingman,  Jones,  and 
Reeve,  who  have  much  to  do  with 
these  beginnings  of  the  modern 
German  theatre,  were  later  active 
in  London  in  establishing  the  Chil- 
dren of  the  Queen's  Revels  at 
Whitefriars  (1610),  they  are  no- 
ticed sufficiently  in  that  connection. 
— See  complete  work,  vols.  I,  II. 

3  See  further  in  complete  work, 
vol.  I,  on  German  imitations  of 
"English  comedians"  after  ca.  1660, 
when  the  Davenant-Killigrew  the- 
atrical monopoly  of  London  throt- 
tled competition  and  aspiration  in 
the  art  of  acting  in  England,  and 
so  made  the  organization  of  addi- 
tional English  companies  at  home 
or  abroad  from  that  time  on  im- 
possible. 


THE  QUEEN'S  REQUIREMENTS  HI 

The  patronage  of  the  companies  named  was  modeled  after  the 
patronage  extended  to  companies  in  England  by  the  nobility  un- 
der Elizabeth.  Indeed,  the  patents  by  Landgraf  Moritz  to  Brown 
and  Kingman1  read  like  English  commissions  adapted  to  German 
conditions.  In  a  word,  then,  these  traveling  troops  of  English 
actors  in  Germany  were  established  on  the  general  plan  of  the 
patronage  extended  to  the  companies  playing  in  the  London  pub- 
lic theatres.  These  public-theatre  companies  of  this  period  were 
composed  of  actors.  There  was  among  them  only  an  occasional 
dancer,  and  a  rarer  musician. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  company  set  up  at  the  court  of  the 
Duke  of  Stettin,  composed  of  actors,  musicians,  and  dancers,  and 
apparently  not  traveling  about  like  the  other  English-German 
troops,  but  remaining  at  the  court,  not  patronized  moreover 
merely  by  a  protecting  commission  but  maintained  at  court  as  a 
charge  on  the  ducal  exchequer,  seems  modeled  more  after  the 
private  establishment  of  Blackfriars.  Whether  the  Duke  brought 
the  troop  directly  from  London,  as  seems  not  unlikely  from  Ha- 
gius's  calling  them  "die  von  E.  F.  G.  bestellte  Comedianten,"2  or 
whether  he  took  up  with  actors,  musicians,  and  dancers  already 
on  the  continent,  a  point  of  difference  from  the  other  instances  is 
that  he  intended  them  for  and,  as  Hagius's  letters  show,  used 
them  for  the  pleasure  and  entertainment  of  his  court  and  friends. 
It  looks  like  the  case  of  a  small  prince  overdoing  great  royalty. — 
such  as  those  numerous,  almost  universal,  European  exaggerated 
imitations  in  dress,  language,  and  customs  inspired  half  a  century 
later  by  the  dazzling  court  of  Louis  XIV. 

I  think  Herr  Meyer  quite  right,  so  far  as  he  goes,  in  saying 
that  the  Duke  acquired  while  in  London  a  special  fondness  for 
the  English  theatre.3  But  from  the  chief  theatrical  interest  of 
the  Duke  as  shown  by  the  Diary  and  from  the  kind  of  company 

'Published  by  Konnecke  in  Zcit-  dass  der  Herzoer  eine  Icbhafte  Vor- 

sehrift    fur    Vergleichende    I.ittera-  liebe     fur     das     englische     Theatre 

turgeschichte   und    Renaissance   Lit-  fasste,   die   ihn   dann   spaterhin   ver- 

tcratur  (Neue  Fol^e.  Berlin.).  I.  anlasste,     englische      Komodianten 

'See    letter    published   by    C    F.  und  Musiker  an  seinen  eignen  Hof 

Meyer       in      Shakespcarc-Jahrbuch  7u  Ziehen  und  mit  grossetn   Kosten- 

i,  XXXVIII,  200.  with  Mey-  aufwand    lance   daselbst    7ii    unter- 

ers's  view.  Iialtcn.     C      F      Meyer,     EngHsch* 

'Zitr    Zcit    dieses    T^ondnner    Auf-  Komodianten  am   Hofe  des  Ffrrzotzs 

enthalts  geschah  es  denn  wohl  auch,  Philipp   Julius   von    Pommem-Wol- 


112  CHILDREN  OF  THE  CHAPEL  AT  BLACKFRIARS 

he  established  as  a  result,  it  is  clear  that  this  fondness  turns  not 
upon  the  public  theatres,  but  upon  the  Queen's  establishment  of 
the  Children  at  Blackfriars. 

There  are  good  grounds  for  concluding  that  Elizabeth  intended 
the  establishment  of  the  Children  of  her  Chapel  as  actors  at  Black- 
friars not  merely  to  give  the  Boys  polish  of  manners,  but  also  to 
pleasure  herself  and  entertain  the  Court.  Her  own  presence 
there  in  company  with  her  court-ladies,  the  testimony  from  other 
sources  that  lords  attended,  and  that  my  fine  gentleman  took  up 
the  fashion  while  the  better  paying  part  of  the  audiences  at  the 
public  theatres  correspondingly  dwindled,  all  indicate  that  this 
was  at  any  rate  the  result,  if  not  the  original  intention.  I  have 
already  pointed  out  that  this  probably  accounts  for  the  Children's 
not  being  oftener  at  Court  from  1597  to  1603.1 

The  high  price  of  admission  also  indicates  the  aristocratic  na- 
ture of  the  audience.  If  a  shilling  was,  as  it  seems  from  the 
Diary,  the  lowest  admission,  the  prices  of  the  choicer  seats,  par- 
ticularly in  the  lords'  rooms,  must  have  been  considerable.  In 
general,  the  admission  fee  so  far  as  known  seems  to  have  been 
from  two  to  twelve  times  as  great  as  at  any  other  theatre  of  the 
period.2 

gast,    in    Jahrbuch    der    Deutschen  fered  also  in  part  among  themselves. 

Shakespeare     Gesellschaft      (1902),  It   is  not  a  fruitful  field,  but  such 

XXXVIII,    198.  as   it  is  it  should  be  reworked  for 

1  Supra,  962.  what  it  may  yield,  with  regard  to 

2  It  seems  remarkable  that  con-  definite  periods  and  conditions  of 
temporary  literature  offers  no  state-  each  theatre  considered. 

ment  of  the  price  of  admission  at  Known  examples  allow  the  fol- 
Blackfriars  for  the  period  in  hand.  lowing  tentative  conclusions  for 
No  proper  study  of  entrance  fees  1597  to  1608.  Admission  to  the 
to  London  theatres,  however,  has  yard  and  upper  gallery  of  the  pub- 
ever  been  made.  Malone,  op.  cit.,  lie  theatres  was  one  penny.  There 
III,  73ff.,  assembled  numerous  ex-  were  also  two-penny  galleries,  or 
amples  ranging  over  about  three-  two-penny  rooms,  in  the  Globe,  For- 
quarters  of  a  century.  Collier,  op.  tune  and  others.  So  far  as  known, 
cit.,  Ill,  146ff.,  reworked  these,  with  the  best  rooms  there  were  a  shill- 
a  few  additions  and  omissions.  The  ing.  The  price  at  Paul's  was  six- 
conclusions  of  both  Malone  and  pence.  There  are  no  known  rec- 
Collier  melt  time  and  individual  ords  as  to  Whitefriars  fees  for  the 
theatres  into  a  single  composite.  period.  At  Blackfriars  the  lowest 
But  clearly  the  prices  and  condi-  price  in  1602  was  a  shilling.  But  in 
tions  of,  say,  1640,  are  not  those  1607  under  very  different  conditions 
of  1600,  much  less  of  1576.  Private  during  the  reign  of  James  I,  it 
theatres  are  all  classed  together  as  seems  sixpence.  The  boxes  and 
having  simply  higher  prices  than  rooms  were  doubtless  dear.  Gal- 
the  public  theatres.     But  they  dif-  lants    who    sat    on    the    Blackfriars 


THE  QUEEN'S  REQUIREMENTS  113 

The  provision,  noted  by  Gerschow,  for  the  training  of  the  Boys 
in  singing,  instrumental  music,  play-acting,  and  other  arts,  as  well 
as  in  general  culture,  accords  not  merely  with  the  material  condi- 
tions and  provisions  of  an  ample  instructorate,  school-house,  the- 
atre, apparel,  and  financial  expenditures.  It  accords  most  par- 
ticularly with  Elizabeth's  passion  for  the  drama  and  her  special 
loves  and  liberal-mindedness  toward  all  means  that  make  for 
broader  living, — characteristics  which  make  her  age  the  era  of 
unprecedented  progress,  and  for  which  the  world  of  letters  and 
arts  has  long  done  her  honor. 

The  entertainment  attended  by  the  Duke  of  Stettin  was,  as  the 
Diary  lets  us  know,  of  the  usual  sort.  From  this  it  is  made  clear 
that  the  new  management  under  Kirkham  and  associates  was 
carrying  out  requirements  to  the  Queen's  wish.  The  chief  train- 
ing of  the  lads  that  could  be  practiced  or  exhibited  on  the  stage 
is  shown, — their  skill  in  singing,  instrumental  music,  acting,  and 
dancing.  It  may  be  concluded  that  the  other  requirements  were 
being  complied  with  equally. 

The  stage  directions  of  the  Blackfriars  plays  during  Elizabeth, 
though  admittedly  meager,  are  nevertheless  corroborative  of  the 
Diary's  statements  on  these  heads.  Still  more,  they  show  that 
these  requirements  were  complied  with  from  first  to  last,  under 
Evans  alone  as  well  as  under  the  Evans-Kirkham  company,  and 
that  the  plays  were  specially  written  to  fit  the  company  and  meet 
these  conditions.  The  evidence  becomes  more  emphatic  by  com- 
paring with  the  same  company's  plays  under  James.  There  we 
find  comparatively  little  singing,  dancing,  and  instrumental  mu- 
sic.1 It  is  of  importance  also  that  the  combined  evidence  wholly 
disproves  Clifton's  charge  before  the  Star  Chamber  to  the  effect 
that  the  boys  taken  up  under  the  commission  to  Gyles  could  not 
sing  and  were  not  taught  to  sing.2  but  were  abusively  used  solely 

paid  besides  the  admission  fee  way  able  or  fitt  for  singing,  nor  by 

an  additional  sixpence  to  a  shilling  anie   the   sayd   confederates   endev- 

for  a   stool   there.  onred  to  be  taught  to  singe,  but  by 

'See  The  Children  of  the  Queen's  them    the   sayd    confederates   abas- 

Revels   at    Blackfriars   in   complete  ively  employed,  as   aforesayd,  only 

work",   vol     I  in  playes  ft  interludes." — Suf<ra 

'Having  named  seven  of  the  boys  This   is   the  spirit   of   the   Com- 

besides  his  own    (  ».  s.,  BO1),  Clif-      plaint  and  its  basis  throughout   The 

ton   continue--,   "being  childeren   noe       virulent   animus   is   loo   apparent. 


114 


CHILDREN  OF  THE  CHAPEL  AT  BLACKFRIARS 


as  "a  companie  of  lewde  &  dissolute  mercenary  players."1  The 
proof  is  vital,  and  is  given  below.2  It  empties  Clifton's  complaint 
of  all  but  the  one  minor  item  that  his  son  was  taken  up  against 
parental  will.  At  the  same  time  it  corroborates  other  evidences 
on  the  conduct  of  Blackfriars. 

I  give  in  foot-notes  the  evidences  of  singing,  instrumental  mu- 
sic, and  dancing,  in  the  known  plays  of  1597-1603.  Plays  pos- 
sibly belonging  to  Blackfriars  in  this  period  but  not  unequivocally 
so  known  or  demonstrable,  as  Contention  between  Liberality  and 
Prodigality,  are  omitted  from  these  lists.3 

The  Children  were  especially  taught  singing.4  Their  training, 
as  even  the  meager  examples  in  the  plays  show,  covered  choral, 
quartette,  duet,  and  solo  practice.  Their  singing  always  aimed 
at  entertainment,  and  is  generally  artistic.  It  ranges  from  light 
touches  of  a  line  or  two  to  "silver  song"  in  a  masque,  and  spirit 
voices  of  an  enchanted  chorus. 


1  Supra,  73s. 

2  Infra,  114-16. 

3  For  all  evidences  on  which  are 
based  the  dates  of  plays  in  the  suc- 
ceeding lists  see  complete  work,  vol. 
II,  under  Plays. 

*The  Case  is  Altered  {ca.  Sept. — 
Oct.,  1597). — I,  i  opens  with  Juni- 
per  singing.     Ill,    i,   Angelo   sings. 

IV,  iii   opens   with  Juniper  singing. 
Cynthia's      Revels      {ca.     April, 

1600). —  (ed.     Gifford-Cunningham), 

I,  i,  p.  151a,  Echo  sings.  II,  i,  p. 
154,  Prosaites  sings.  Ill,  iii,  p.  170, 
Asotus  sings  and  dances.  IV,  i,  p. 
177.  Hedon  sings.  IV,  i,  p.  178, 
Amorphus  sings  to  the  lyre.  V,  iii 
opens  with  "music  accompanied. 
Hesperus  sings."  V  (end),  Pali- 
node, sung  in  pairs,  then  chorus 
after  each  pair.  V  (end).  Mercury 
and  Crites  sing. 

Sir  Giles  Goose  cap  {ca.  fall, 
1600). — I,   iv,  a  song  to  the  Violls. 

II,  i.  Enter  Winnifred  and  Anabell 
"with  their  sowing  workes  and 
sing."  III.  ii.  "Sing  good  Horatio, 
while  I  sigh,"  &c.  Canto;  "Sing  one 
stave  more,  my  good  Horatio." 
Canto;  "Your  third  staunce  sweet 
Horatio,    and     no    more."      Canto. 

V,  [ii],    "In    form    whereof    first 


daunce,  faire  Lords  and  Ladies,  and 
after  sing,  so  we  will  sing  and 
daunce. 

The  Measure 
Now  to  the  song  and  do  this  gar- 
land grace."     Canto. 

Poetaster  {ca.  April,  1601).— 
(ed.  Gifford-Cunningham),  II,  i,  p. 
221b,  Crispinus  sings.  Ibid.,  Her- 
mogenes  sings,  accompanied.  IV,  i, 
p.  238&,  Crispinus  plays  and  sings. 
IV,  iii,  p.  243a,  Albius  sings.  IV, 
iii,  p.  243a,  Hermes  sings. 

The  Gentleman  Usher  {ca.  Sum. 
1601).— (ed.  Shepherd,  1873),  I,  i, 
p.  82a,  Lasso,  hearing  "Re,  mi,  fa, 
sol,  la,"  says,  "Oh  they  are  prac- 
ticing; good  boys,  well  done."  I,  i, 
p.  82b,  Enter  Enchanter,  with  spir- 
its singing.  II,  i,  p.  87a,  Bassiolo 
gives  the  boys  directions  concern- 
ing their  singing.  II,  i,  p.  87&, 
Broom-man,  Rush-man,  Broom- 
maid,  Rush-maid,  "with  silver  song" 
in  a  masque.  II,  i,  p.  88&,  Male 
Bug  and  Female  Bug  sing,  in  a 
masque.  Ill,  i  opens  with  "the 
song."     V,  i,  p.  105a,  song. 

Monsieur  D'Olive  {ca.  Oct. — 
Dec,  1601). — No  singing  indicated. 

May  Day  {ca.  May,  1602).— (Ed. 
idem),    I,    i,    preceded    by    "Chorus 


THE  QUEEN'S  REQUIREMENTS  115 

But  the  SOIlgS  ill  the  plays  arc  not  the  only  nor  the  chief  evi- 
dence that  the  requirements  for  the  vocal  training  of  the  boys 
was  specially  emphasized  and  fully  carried  out.  Under  the  mas- 
tership of  Gyles  the  Children  presented  before  her  Ma  jest)  at 
Court  "a  showe  u''1  musycke  and  special)  songes  prepared  for  ye 
purpose  on  Twelfth  da)  at  night,"1 — Monday,  Feb.  6,  i6oo-[i]. 
This  was  the  same  year  in  which  the  Queen  attended  Blackfriars, 
and  within  two  months  after  Clifton's  son  had  been  taken  up, — the 
very  time  when  Clifton  declares  to  the  Queen  that  the  Children 
did  not  and  could  nol  sing  and  were  not  taught  to  sing.-  Hamlet 
in  the  same  year  testifies  to  their  singing,  and  suggests  that  they 
are  maintained  as  actors  only  so  long  as  they  can  sing,  as  if  their 
singing  were  the  basic  consideration  of  their  employment  and 
their  acting  but  consequential.8  Within  a  year  after  these  two 
testimonies  and  within  six  months  after  the  Evans-Kirkham  re- 
organization of  the  management  consequent  upon  the  Star  Cham- 
ber Decree  against  Evans,  the  present  Diary  of  the  Duke  of  Stet- 
tin, September,  i  (*>_>.  says  this  provision  is  carried  out  and  shows 
by  an  example  how  extensive  the  training  must  have  been.  So 
charmingly  sang  one  of  the  Boys  cum  voce  trcmula  that  unless 

juvenum     cantantes      et     saltantes.  II,  iii,  85,  "Cantat"    [Mulligrub,  all 

[Exeunt    saltan."      Ill,    i.    p.    '290a,  lathered     with     shaving-suds,     here 

The  "Chimney-sweep"  song  by  Lo-  seems   the  singer].     Ill,   i,  3,   Bea- 

renzo.      IV.    i.   p.    296a,   Quintiliano  trice    sings.      Three    lines    of    song 

sings.  given,     then     "&c"       TV,     v.     70-83, 

The      Wi&ovfs      Tears      (Sept.  Cockledemoy  disguised  as  the  Bell- 

1603). — I.  i.  "He  dances  and  sings."  man    sings    rather    than    speaks    a 

[This  is  the  only  direction  for  sing-  rhymed     ribald     cry.       V.     i.      19, 

ing   in    the   play.      Yet    it    was   this  "[Franc]      Cantat     saltatque     cum 

plaj    that  was  preceded  by  a  musi-  cithera."     V,   ii,   35,    Freevill   sings; 

cale  of  an  hour's  duration,  with  the  3G-4.'!.    the   song. 

charming    singing,    as     reported    by  The  Malcontent   (  spring.  160:i). — 

the   Diary  of  the  Duke  of  Stettin. —  I,  i,  A  song.     II.  iii.  A  song  within. 

•>".   115-18*.]  While    the    son)               nging,    enter 

The      (hitch      Courtezan      (fall —  Mendoza,  &C.      III.  ii,   Song  bj 

wint,    1602). — (ed.    1633,   and    Bui-  ond  and  third  pages      V.  ii.  Enter 

len,     1887),     I,    ii.    1.    213,     Enter  from    opposite    sides    Malevole   and 

Franceschina  with  her  lute;  219,  she  Maquerelle  singing.     [On  the  omis- 

sings  to  her  lute;  220  27,  the  song,  skra  of  the  music  elements  of  this 

II.    i.    Enter    Freevill,    pages    with  play     as     originally     presented     at 

hes,  and  gentlemen  with  music.  Blackfriars,  s<                 116    it] 

Then  at  1.  8,  a  serenade  of  music  and  'See    complete     work.    vol.     u, 

under  Beatrice's  window.     II,  Plays  at  Court     Also  cf   if-'.  181*- 
i.  68,  The  nightingales  sing.     II,  ii, 

!  Franc  I  I                llice."    1 1,  ii.  iSubra,  so1,   n 

Franceschina  sings,  with  al-  *ro,  180 
ternating    comments    on    the    lines. 


116 


CHILDREN  OF  THE  CHAPEL  AT  BLACKFRIARS 


the  nuns  at  Milan  might  be  compared  with  him,  the  travelers  felt 
they  had  not  heard  his  equal  in  Germany,  Italy,  or  France. 

Training  in  instrumental  music1  was  also  extensive,  requiring 
an  acquaintance  with  the  principal  instruments  of  the  time, — or- 
gan, lute,  bandora,  manolin,  violin,  bass-viol,  'cello,  flute,  and 
cornet. 

But  the  plays  give  necessarily  slight  indications  of  the  music. 
The  Malcontent,  for  example,  as  it  has  reached  us,  is  pretty  well 
shorn  of  this  attraction,  as  the  Induction  declares.2    The  delight- 


1The  Case  is  Altered  (ca.  Sept. — 
Oct.,  1597).— I,  i,  "A  flourish"  pre- 
cedes the  opening.  I,  ii  ends  with 
"a  tucket." 

Cynthia's  Revels  (ca.  April, 
1600) . —  (ed.   Gifford  -  Cunningham) 

IV,  i,  p.  178,  Amorphus  sings  to 
the  lyre.  V,  ii,  p.  186b,  Music. 
Idem,  187a,  charge;  flourish.  Idem, 
189,  charge  (twice)  ;  flourish 
(twice).  Idem,  193b,  charge;  flour- 
ish.    Idem,   194b,  charge;    flourish. 

V,  iii  opens  with  "Music  accompa- 
nied. Hesperus  sings."  V,  iii,  p. 
200a,  Music.  A  dance  by  the  two 
masques,  &c.  Idem,  200b,  Music. 
Second  dance.  Idem,  201b,  Music. 
Third  dance. 

Sir  Giles  Goose  cap  (ca.  fall, 
1600).— (ed.  Bullen)  I,  iv,  p.  21, 
Enter    Clarence,    Musicians.     Idem, 

22,  A    song   to   the   Violls.     Idem, 

23,  Exeunt  Musicians. 
Poetaster     (ca.     April,     1601). — 

(ed.  Gifford-Cunningham),  II,  i,  p. 
221b,  Hermogines  sings  accompa- 
nied. IV,  i,  p.  238b,  Crispinus  plays 
and  sings.  IV,  iii,  p.  243a,  Music. 
Albius  sings.  IV,  iii,  p.  243a,  Mu- 
sic.    Hermes  sings. 

The  Gentleman  Usher  (ca.  sum. 
1601).— (ed.  Shepherd,  1873),  II,  i, 
p.  87a,  Music. 

Monsieur  D'Olive  (ca.  Oct. — 
Dec,  1601.) — No  music  indicated. 

May  Day  (ca.  May,  1602).— (ed. 
Shepherd,  1873),  III,  iv,  p.  295b, 
"Tapster,  call  us  in  some  music." 
IV,  i,  p.  295b,  Enter  .  .  .  &c,  with 
music.  Quintiliano. — "Strike  up, 
scrapers."  Idem,  296a,  Qu. — 
"(strike  up  fiddlers)";  and  farther 
on,  "Farewell,  scrapers,"  &c. 


The  Widow's  Tears  (Sept.,  1602). 
—  (ed.  Shepherd,  1873),  III,  ii,  p. 
325b,  Music.  Two  lines  farther  on, 
"Music.  Hymen  descends"  &c. 
[See  comment  supra,  115,  col.  1.] 

The  Dutch  Courtesan  (fall-wint, 
1602).— (ed.  1633  and  Bullen,  1887), 

I,  ii,  1.  213,  Enter  Franceschina  with 
her  lute;  219,  she  sings  to  her  lute. 

II,  i,  Enter  Freevill,  pages  with 
torches,  and  gentlemen  with  music. 
Then  at  1. 8,  a  serenade  of  music 
and  song  under  Beatrice's  window. 
V,  i,  1.  18  "[Franc]  Cantat  saltatque 
cum  cithera." 

The  Malcontent  (spring,  1603). 
— I,  i,  The  vilest  of  out-of-tune  mu- 
sic being  heard,  &c  II,  iii,  Music 
within.  Ill,  ii,  Cornets  like  horns 
within.  IV,  i,  Cornets  sound  with- 
in.— Amelia. — "We  will  dance: — 
music ! — we  will  dance."  Amelia 
calls  for  "music"  five  times  in  this 
scene,  for  the  dance  of  the  inter- 
rupted masque.  IV,  i,  Cornets 
flourish.  V,  ii,  ,:  ...  Peace! 
cornets  !"  V,  iii,  "The  music !"  i.  e., 
for  the  masque.  Ibid.,  "cornets, 
cornets  I"  V,  iii,  Enter  Mercury 
with  loud  music.  Ibid.,  "Cornets : 
the  song  to  the  cornets,  which  play- 
ing, the  mask  enters."  Ibid.,  "the 
cornets  sound  the  measure"  (first 
dance).  Repeated,  in  second  dance. 
Ibid.,  "Cornets,  a  flourish."  Re- 
peated at  close  of  play. 

2  The  Malcontent  was  first  played 
at  Blackfriars  in  the  spring  of  1603. 
During  the  unsettled  state  of  affairs 
of  that  year  (cf.  Children  of  the 
Queen's  Revels  at  Blackfriars,  1603- 
1608,  in  complete  work,  vol.  I)  it 
fell  into  the  hands  of  the  Burbage 


THE  QUEEN'S  KEQUIREMEN  I  S 


m 


ful  concert  of  instruments  and  voices1  preceding  the  play  and 
lasting  an  hour  was,  as  the  Diary  informs  us,  the  customary  pre- 
lude.    It  was  ii<  >  part  of  the  play,  and  is  not  mentioned,  therefore, 


company,  who  cut  out  the  music 
elements,  in  the  main,  because  that 
company  could  not  present  them, 
as  the  following  from  the  Induction 
spoken  in  1G04  from  the  Globe  stage 
indicates : — 

"Sly.     What  are  your  additi 

Hurbage.  Sooth,  not  greatly 
needful ;  only  as  your  salad  to  your 
great  feast,  to  entertain  a  little 
more  time,  and  to  abridge  the  not- 
received  custom  of  music  in  our 
theatre." 

'It  is  likely  and  seems  as  nearly 
certain  as  circumstantial  evidence 
can  render  it  that  Blackfriars  pop- 
ularized the  vocal-instrumental  con- 
cert. A  few  years  later  (1609), 
special  provision  is  made  for  con- 
certs as  well  as  for  plays  in  the 
articles  of  agreement  by  the  com- 
pany at  Whitefriars  called  Children 
of  the  King's  Revels, — a  company 
modeled  after  Blackfriars.  (cf.  in- 
fra, 1212.) 

If  the  activity  of  Blackfriars  in 
producing  such  concerts  while  car- 
rying out  the  Queen's  requirements 
and  wishes  did  not  cause  a  corre- 
sponding (and  the  first  known)  ac- 
tivity of  musicians  in  collecting  and 
publishing  suitable  songs  and  scores 
for  such  vocal  and  instrumental 
concerts,  then  it  must  be  considered 
as  at  least  remarkable  that  the  two 
activities,  each  closely  related  to  the 
other,  sprang  up  independently  and 
simultaneously. 

Hie       earhesl      known      English 
books    of    songs    with    accompani- 
hief   musical    instru- 
ments    used     at      Blackfriars     were 
published      about      1600  Thomas 

gentlemen  of 
the  Chape!  Royal,  published  "The 
first  book  of  \irrs  or  little  short 
Songes  to  sing  and  play  to  the  lute 
with  the  bass  viol.  London,  1f>00." 
About  the  same  time,  John  Dow- 
land  published  "  I  he  first  booke  of 
Songes    01  'ire     Parts 

with    Tablature   for   the   Lute."     In 


L600  he  published  a  second  book  of 
"Songes  and  Aires"  for  "the  lute 
or  Orpherian,  with  the  viol  de  gam- 
ba"  (entered  on  Stationers'  Regis- 
ter 15  July,  1600),  in  which  he  styles 
himself  lutenist  to  the  King  of  Den- 
mark. His  third  work  appeared  in 
L603  with  the  title,  "Songs  or  Aires 
to  sing  to  the  lute,  Orpharion,  or 
Violls." 

Philip  Rosseter,  lutenist,  whom 
we  later  (1610  ff.,  complete  work, 
vol.  I )  find  an  important  figure  in 
the  history  of  the  Children  of  the 
Queen's  Revels  at  Whitefriars,  pub- 
lished in  1601  "A  Booke  of  Ayres 
set  foorth  to  be  song  to  the  Lute, 
Orpherian,  and  base  Violl"  (en- 
tered on  Stationers'  Register  8 
May,  1603  ).  Another  work  by  Ros- 
seter was  entered  on  the  Stationers' 
Register  14  April,  1609,  under  title 
"A  booke  of  Consortes  to  the  treble 
lute,  bandora,  treble  viall,  base  viall, 
the  Citterne  and  the   fflute." 

The  poet  Samuel  Daniel's  broth- 
er, John  Daniel, — whom  we  meet 
later  ( 1615ft..  complete  work.  vol. 
I)  as  the  leader  of  that  old-men's 
company  practicing  on  the  reputa- 
tion of  the  children-companies  as 
an  asset  under  the  name  of  The 
Children  of  her  Majesty's  Royal 
Chamber  of  Bristol, — -published  in 
1606  a  volume  of  "Songs  for  the 
Lute.  Vial,  and  Voice,  in  fol 

— For  data  above,  see  Sir  John 
Hawkins,  .7  General  History  of  the 
Science  and  Practice  of  Music,  etc. 
(17761  ;  1853*),  I  1826;  11. 
570a,  571&.  Also,  1".  \rl»T.  A  Tran- 
script of  the  Registers  of  the  Com- 
pany of  Stationers  of  London,  /s's"/- 
i6.fb    (1875-94),    III. 

These  h<  cert  music  for 

voice    and    instrument    are    not    only 
the   earliest   of   their   kind,    but 
form    a    collection    more    numerous 
than    the    product    in    tin's    branch    at 

any  later  period  of  similar  brevity. 

If  they  did   not   arise  out  of  the  na- 
ture   and    popularity    of    the    Black- 


118 


CHILDREN  OF  THE  CHAPEL  AT  BLACKFRIARS 


in  either  Chapman's  The  Widow's  Tears, — the  "chaste  widow" 
which  the  Duke  of  Stettin  saw,1 —  nor  in  any  other  play. 

It  is  quite  clear  that  the  musical  training  of  the  Children  amply 
balanced  the  dramatic. 

The  notable  thing  about  the  dancing2  is  that  it  differs  from  the 
public  theatre  jig  and  Morris.  It  is  treated  more  as  an  art  and 
seems  modeled  on  the  masques  long  practiced  at  Court.  This  is 
true  especially  of  Jonson's  Cynthia's  Revels  and  four  of  Chap- 
man's plays,  Sir  Giles  Goosecap,  The  Gentleman  Usher,  May  Day, 
The  Widow's  Tears;  also  Marston's  The  Dutch  Courtezan  and 
The  Malcontent. 

The  ancient  custom  of  masques  at  Court3  was  carried  out  by 
Elizabeth  and  her  predecessors  with  elaborate  detail  and  at  great 


friars  entertainments  which  had  be- 
come the  great  new  fad  of  London, 
the  suggestion  of  it  at  least  is  diffi- 
cult to  repress,  and  no  other  ex- 
planation of  the  simultaneity  pre- 
sents itself. 

xSee  further,  infra,  "Plays,"  vol. 
II. 

2  The  Case  is  Altered  (ca.  Sept. — 
Oct.,  1597). — No  dancing  indicated. 

Cynthia's  Revels  (ca.  Apl.  1600). 
— (ed.  Gifford-Cunningham),  III, 
iii,  p.  170,  Asotus  sings  and  dances. 
V,  iii,  p.  200a-202a,  three  several 
dances,  each  composed  of  eight 
maskers  in  rich  attire,  —  four 
nymphs  of  Cynthia's  court  and  four 
sylvan  brethren. 

Sir  Giles  Goosecap  (ca.  fall, 
1600).— (ed.  Bullen),  II,  i,  p.  31,. 
"He  daunceth  speaking."  '  .  .  . 
Your  Lord  is  very  dancitive  me- 
thinkes."  V,  ii,  p.  92,  A  masque 
closes  the  play,  "In  form  whereof 
first  daunce,  .  .  .  sing  and 
daunce 

The  Measure. 
Now  to  the  song  and  do  this  gar- 
land grace."     Canto. 

Poetaster  (ca.  Apl.  1601). — No 
dancing  indicated.  See  further,  in- 
fra, 119. 

The  Gentleman  Usher  (ca.  sum., 
1601).— (ed.  Shepherd.  1873),  II,  i, 
p.  88a,  Dance  of  Broom-man,  Rush- 
man,   Broom-maid,   Rush-maid   in  a 


masque. 

Monsieur  D' Olive  (ca.  Oct. — 
Dec,  1601). — No  dancing  indicated. 

May  Day  (ca.  May,  1602).— (ed. 
Shepherd,  1873),  I,  i,  preceded  by 
"Chorus  juvenum  cantantes  et  sal- 
tantes.  [Exeunt  saltan."  IV,  i,  p. 
296,  Quintiliano  skips  about  while 
singing  to  music  of  fiddles.  V,  i, 
p.  3036,  Enter  Aurelia,  &c,  .  .  . 
masked,  dancing.  The  masque  is 
danced  in  three  rounds.  The  play 
ends  with  all  joining  hands  and 
dancing.     Exeunt. 

The  Widow's  Tears  (Sept., 
1602).— (ed.  idem),  III,  ii,  p.  326a, 
A  masque.  Six  sylvans  with  torches 
dance.  They  take  out  the  bride  and 
the  rest.  All  dance.  V,  i,  p.  382a, 
"He  dances  and  sings." 

The  Dutch  Courtesan  (fall — 
wint,  1602).— IV,  i,  Enter  the 
Masquers ;  they  dance. 

The  Malcontent  (spring,  1603). 
— In  IV,  i,  the  masque  begun  on 
elaborate  scale  of  the  "brawl"  is  in- 
terrupted and  not  taken  up  again. 
The  movements  to  be  executed  in 
the  court  dance  described.  V,  iii, 
A  masque,  in  which  additional  coup- 
les join  at  intervals. 

3  See  especially  A.  Soergel,  Die 
Englischen  Maskenspicle  (Diss., 
Halle,  1882)  ;  and  Rudolf  Brotanek, 
Die  Englischen  Maskenspiele 
(1902). 


I  III.  QUEEN'S  REQUIREMENTS  H9 

expense  during  the  annual  period  of  relaxation  of  the  Christmas 
Revels.  But  these  masques  within  the  play  at  Blackfriars  were 
a  wholl}  new  feature  in  the  evolution  of  the  drama,1  and  cannot 
have  been  but  Strikingly  attractive  and  popular  with  the  aristo- 
cratic patrons.  The  dance  was  made  up  of  nymphs,  or  sylphs, 
or  other  airy,  mythological,  or  fanciful  shapes.  The  effect  was 
heightened  by  special  costumes  calculated  to  lead  the  eye  through 
the  maze  of  masque  into  pleasing  bewilderment. 

In  Cynthia's  Revels  the  masque  is  danced  by  four  nymphs  and 
four  fairy  brethren.  All  are  dressed  to  the  taste  of  the  Royal 
Court  of  Fancy.  The  nymphs  in  citron,  green,  vari-colored,  and 
white,  match  their  sylvan  partners  in  green  and  blue,  purple  em- 
pal,  d  with  -old.  l.lnsh-color,  and  watchet-tinsel.  The  whole  sit- 
uation is  phantastic.  The  evolutions  are  executed  under  the  magic 
of  Cupid  and  .Mercury  in  the  presence  of  the  throned  Cynthia. 
Doubtless  the  masque  was  danced  to  the  level  of  Jonson's  con- 
ception of  the  mingling  of  colors,  movement,  and  music  into  har- 
monious charm. 

Sir  Giles  Gooseeap  closes  with  a  dance  of  lords  and  ladies,  fol- 
lowed by  a  song.  This  is  on  the  order  of  a  Court-masque,  and  is 
danced  in  honor  of  Hymen.  Doubtless  it  was  executed  with 
elaboration,  giving  the  light  play  its  chief  attraction.  Merely  its 
place  of  occurrence,  at  the  end  of  the  play,  is  mentioned  in  the 
printed  drama  as  it  has  reached  us. 

Poetaster  may  be  mentioned  in  this  connection,  although  it  con- 
tains no  stage  directions  for  dancing.  But  it  has  in  act  IV  "a 
pretty  fiction"  of  "a  heavenly  banquet"  represented  as  played  at 
the  Court.  It  is  "a  pageant"  or  masque  of  the  Bacchanalian 
revels  of  the  gods  in  the  full  habit  of  deities,  with  the  effect 
too  much  nectar  riotously  dominant  in  the  ichor  of  their  deity- 
ships.  The  revel  closes  with  irregular  singing  and  loud  music, 
ami  might  appropriately  have  had  the  reeling  accompaniment  of 
the  Bacchanalian  dance  ending  with  the  usual  joyous  whoop  in 
swinging  die  fair  goddess  clean  from  the  floor  at  the  great  final 
leap  of  "the  swaggering  upspring."1 

The  "pretty  show"  in   77;,-  Gentleman   ('slier  is  a  masque  pre- 

infra,  119  21,  in  Ei  "  to  see  tin--  manner 

'This    i-    a    CUStOtn    Still    familiar       and   finish    of  a    (I. nice   in    its   native 


120  CHILDREN  OF  THE  CHAPEL  AT  BLACKFRIARS 

sented  in  the  presence  of  Duchess  Margaret  as  she  sits  on  her 
throne  surrounded  by  the  splendor  of  lords  and  ladies  of  the 
Court.  The  dancers  and  singers  are  sylvans  and  nymphs  under 
the  names  of  Man-bug,  Woman-bug,  Broom-man,  Rush-man, 
Broom-maid,  Rush-maid.  The  entertainment  was  voted  as  "pleas- 
ingly performed." 

May  Day  opens  with  a  chorus  of  youths  dancing  and  closes 
with  "the  May-night  show  at  Signor  Honorio's."  The  whole 
play  is  preparation  for  this  masque,  and  the  most  of  the  conver- 
sation of  act  V  is  simply  lively  setting  for  it.  It  is  the  life  and 
entertainment  at  the  home  of  a  lord  transferred  with  heightened 
coloring  to  the  stage. 

In  The  Widow's  Tears,  seen  by  the  Duke  of  Stettin,  "the  revels 
and  nuptial  sports"  at  the  palace  of  the  "chaste  widow,"  the 
Countess  Eudora,  make  up  much  of  act  III.  It  is  a  royal  bridal 
scene,  containing  a  masque  of  "rare  device."  With  Tharsalio  in 
the  chair  of  honor,  the  bride  Eudora,  surrounded  by  her  court- 
ladies,  takes  her  place  at  his  side.  The  show  and  masque  are  the 
spiritualization  of  the  ceremony  of  marriage.  At  the  sound  of 
music,  Hymen,  represented  by  one  of  the  players  who  "hangs  in 
the  clouds  deified,"  descends  toward  the  bridal  pair,  while  a 
chorus  of  "fresh  and  flowry  sylvans"  bearing  torches  enter  be- 
neath, "curveting  and  tripping  ath'  toe,  as  the  ground  they  trod 
on  were  too  hot  for  their  feet."  With  such  courtship  as  they 
make  to  the  Dryads,  they  lead  the  bride  and  her  court-ladies  into 
the  sylvan  nuptial  dance. 

The  Dutch  Courtesan  presents  a  masque  at  the  opening  of  act 
IV.  From  previous  mention  in  the  play  concerning  the  proposed 
masque,  we  rightly  expect  large  entertainment  from  the  perform- 
ance of  it.  Possibly  it  may  have  fulfilled  expectations,  but  neither 
the  dialogue  nor  the  stage  directions  let  us  know.  The  masquers 
at  Sir  Hubert  Subboy's  house  are  about  to  enter  as  the  act  opens. 
Servants  are  standing  with  lights  to  lend  brilliance  to  the  per- 
formance. More  lights  are  called  for.  As  the  masquers  arrive, 
Sir  Lionel  Freevill  calls  out  "Call  down  our  daughter.     Hark! 

woodland   and   mountain   perfection  and    atmosphere,    visit    sometime    a 

of    thrilling    wildness    as    inspired  dance  in  any  valley  of  the  Alps  of 

originally  into  the  reveling  Pan  and  the  German  Tyrol. 
Bacchus    by    similar    surroundings 


THE  QUEEN'S  REQUIREMENTS  121 

they  are  at  hand :  rank  handsomely."  As  the  masque  is  in  cele- 
bration of  the  pending-  nuptials  of  the  son  of  Sir  Lionel  with  the 
daughter  Beatrice  of  Sir  Hubert,  doubtless  some  magnificence 
was  given  the  setting.  But  the  masque  is  quickly  broken  up  by  a 
challenge  to  a  duel, — feigned  and  prearranged.  Altogether  the 
reader  is  given  to  know  very  little  of  how  the  masque  went.  Cer- 
tainly the  action  does  not  seem  to  allow  great  elaboration  of  the 
dance,  but  that  could  have  been  shaped  to  the  will  of  the  actors. 

Twice  in  The  Malcontent  are  we  presented  with  a  masque.  The 
first,  in  which  the  elaborate  evolutions  of  "The  Brawl"  were  about 
to  be  danced,  was  interrupted  and  not  carried  out.  The  second 
closes  the  play.  Mercury  is  the  master  of  the  revels.  In  the 
midst  of  a  song  to  the  accompaniment  of  cornets,  the  masque  of 
four  crowned  Dukes,  dressed  in  white  robes,  enters.  They  choose 
their  ladies,  and  dance  and  chat  to  the  accompaniment  of  cornets. 
It  is  not  a  highly  successful  show,  and  fully  justifies  Jonson  in 
not  including  Marston  with  himself,  Chapman,  and  Fletcher  as 
the  only  ones  who  could  write  a  masque.1 

The  indications  in  the  plays  for  singing,  music,  and  dancing 
as  cited  above,  though  amply  substantiating  Gerschow's  state- 
ment of  the  Queen's  requirements,  cover  only  the  incidental  prac- 
ticing of  these  arts.  The  chief  exhibitions  in  music  and  singing 
had  nothing  to  do  with  the  plays,  as  already  noted  in  the  evidence 
from  the  Diary.  It  is  probable  also  that  musical  entertainments 
were  given  exclusive  of  dramatic  performances.  For  later,  in 
certain  articles  of  agreement  concerning  the  conduct  of  the  Chil- 
dren of  the  King's  Revels  at  Whitefriars,2  a  company  modeled 
after  the  Blackfriars  organization,  there  is  special  provision  made 
concerning  the  receipts  from  musicales  as  well  as  plays. 

Also,  the  special  "show"3  presented  at  Court  Feb.  6.   1601.  is 

l"Nex1     himself,    only     Fletcher  for   only   one    separate    masque    by 

and  Chapman  could  make  a  Mask."  Chapman  is  now  known.    Certainly 

— Not<s  of  Ben  Jonson's  Conversa-  either  Jonson  or  Chapman  prepared 

lions  with    William   Drummond   of  the  special  "show"  presented  before 

Hawthornden,    January,    r6ig    (cd.  the  Queen  by  the  Children   Feb.  f>, 

I    Laing,   Shakesp.   Soc.    Pub.,  1601,  Eor  no  other  poets  were  then 

1842).   4.  employed  to  prepare  their  plays,  and 

It   is   doubtless   upon   the  eminent  no  others  were  turning  out  thai 

■uccess   of   Chapman's   masques    in  of  work. 

the   plays  of  the    Blackfriars   Roys  'See  complete  work.  vols.  I.  III. 

that    Jonson    gave    him    this    praise,  'Supra.    LIS1. 


122  CHILDREN  OF  THE  CHAPEL  AT  BLACKFRIARS 

further  suggestive.  Although  nothing  further  is  known  of  it, 
there  is  little  likelihood  that  Gyles  and  Evans  took  the  trouble  of 
preparing  such  an  entertainment  without  reaping  the  benefits  of 
its  re-presentation  at  the  theatre.  Moreover,  the  Queen  would 
hardly  have  called  for  such  a  specialty  if  the  Children  had  not 
been  previously  trained  in  similar  performances.  Documentary 
proof  of  such  "shows"  would  explain  the  gap  in  the  period  of 
1597  to  1600.  But  at  present  it  seems  only  highly  probable  that 
an  important  part  of  their  lost  repertoire  consisted  of  these  mu- 
sical and  dramatic  ephemera.1 

The  requirements  for  the  training  of  the  Children  at  Black- 
friars  gave  rise  to  new  features  in  the  drama.  Music  of  minor 
sort  as  also  singing  are  known  earlier,  particularly  in  plays  of 
the  Children  of  the  Chapel  and  Paul's  from  their  beginnings  on. 
The  public  theatres  had  less  of  either.  But  the  origin  of  musical 
praeludia,  interludia,  and  intermezzos,  cannot  be  traced  farther 
than  this  period  at  Blackfriars. 

The  masque  as  an  integral  part  of  the  play  is  unknown  in  dra- 
matic history  prior  to  the  establishment  of  Blackfriars  theatre.2 

1  It    is    probable    that   the    Queen  'T  is  Cynthia's  pleasure." 
not    infrequently    called     for     such  *r>r.  a.   Soergel,  Die  Englischen 

ephemeral    "shows."      Jonson    may  Maskenspiele    (Diss.    Halle,    1882), 

well  have  got  that  training  here  in  88>     dates     the     beginning     of     the 

masques    which    made    him    under  maSque  within  the  play  as  ca.  1600 

James  the  foremost  man  of  all  time  but  without  knowing  the  influences 

in    that    special    form    of    entertain-  here  mentioned.     It  is  probable  that 

ment.      In    his    Conversations    zvith  this  new  species  of  drama  that  had 

Drummond   (ed.  Lame    S.  S.  Pub.,  such    wjde    following    in    the    next 

1S42),   27,   he   says,    "that   the   half  half  century  began  three  years  ear- 

of  his  Comedies  were  not  in  print.  ijer  than   Soergel  puts  it,  with  the 

Why?     Jonson  was  generally  care-  opening  of   Blackfriars.     This   part 

ful  to  preserve  his  work.     Were  a  0f  his  thesis  Dr.   Soergel  has  only 

good  part  of  his   inventions  among  touched    upon,    leaving    a    thorough 

these  evanescences,  which  the  Queen  working  to  the  future.     But  it  has 

may  have   commanded?     His   Cyn-  not   yet  been   made   public,    if  ever 

ihia's  Revels  is  a  tribute  to  her  as  undertaken. 

such  a  patroness.     In  that  play  she  Dr.    Rudolf  Brotanek,   Die  Eng- 

is  Cynthia  and  he  is  Cntes.     It  is  Hschen  Maskenspiele   (Wien,  1902), 

so   suggestive  of  the  mode  of   ful-  99i    has   assembled   the  known   evi- 

filling   the    Queen's   requirements   at  dences    to    show    that    the    masque 

Blackfriars  as  to  seem  to  be  drawn  within    the    play   is    of   earlier    ori- 

from   life   when    in   that   play,   near  gjn  • , 

the   close   of   V,    ii,   just   preceding  '    j>as  friiheste  Zeugnis   fur  die  in 

the    masque    of    111,    Arete    says    to  der    Bliitezeit    der    Maske    sehr   be- 

Cntes,  liebte     Einschiebung       in       andere 

"Crites    you    must    provide    straight  Stiicke  stammt  aus  dem  Jahre  1514 

for  a  masque,  und    bezieht    sich    auf    ein    Interlu- 


THE  QUEEN'S  REQUIREMENTS  128 

The  example  there  was  followed  almost  immediately  by  others.1 
In  general  the  ( ihapd  Children's  plays  did  much  to  set  the  dra- 
matic tone  of  the  time.  Novelty  indeed  carried  it  away,  for  the 
Children  were  "now  the  fashion.*'-  The  influence  especially  on 
Shakespeare  as  well  as  other  contemporaries,  likewise  also  on 
the  character  of  the  Court  entertainments  under  James  I,  particu- 
larly the  masques,8  requires  extensive  investigation  in  detail,  and 
i>  reserved  of  necessity  for  a  later  publication. 

The  furnishing  of  apparel  at  the  Queen's  cost  has  already  been 
presented.'  The  prodigal  lavishness  of  the  rich  costuming  is 
mentioned  in  the  Diary  and  abundantly  supported  by  the  plays. 
The  sense  of  unlimited  resources  gave  the  Blackfriars  dramatists, 
Jonson,  Chapman,  and  Marston,  a  free  hand  and  enabled  them  to 
undertake  plots  and  present  characters  and  situations  requiring 
the  most  elaborate  courtly  elegance.  Theatrical  conditions  in 
this  phase  as  in  all  others  had  much  to  do  with  shaping  the  nature 
of  the  drama. — more  than  is  commonly  supposed.  By  virtue  of 
the  conditions  of  management  and  distributed  shareship  originally 
peculiar  to  the  Globe,5  Shakespeare  alone  of  all  the  numerous 
other  dramatists  of  this  period"  enjoyed  a  similar  sense  of  unre- 
strained freedom  in  choice  and  artistic  treatment  of  dramatic 
material. 

The  masques  already  mentioned,  with  fairies,  nymphs,  gods, 

dium   "devysed  by  Sir  Harry  Gyll-  dialogue  are  of  course  of  even  very 

forth,    Master    of    the    Revells    .  .  .  much   earlier  date  than   these  cases 

in  tin-  whiche  conteyned  a  moresk  cited   by    Brotanek.     Rut   all 

of     VI.     p«r-<  >u-a     ami      li.     ladys."  cases    fall    into    a   class    wholly    out- 

[Foot-note     reference,     Collier,     I,  si<Ie  the  masque  as  an  integral  part 

Letters     and     Papers     of     the  of    the    theatrical    drama    a-    known 

of     Henry     I  III.     I.     718f.  1  for   the  first   time   in   the  hi-t 

Auffuhrung  isl   sicher   ident-  the    English    drama   on    Blackfriars 

iscli   mil   ilem   von   William   Cornish  stage. 

fiir    dieselbe     Weihnachtsfeier    Re-  'See  further  complete  work.  vol. 

schrieben    Tryumpe    of    Love    and  I. 

Sir    Henry    Guildford    er-  : Infra.  L66  67,   174,  1;  .  L77. 

sann                r    die    Handlung,    und  "For     a     chronological     list     of 

iish    fuhrte  die   Reden   aus."  known  masques,  see  Soergel,  op.  cit., 

Brotanek  points  out   further  that  72  75  (1604    (7);  and  Brotanel 

in  Interlude  of  the  Four  Elements  cit. 

at   cl                   Mumming   indicated.  *Supra,  98-101. 

o,  if  ye  list,  ye  may  bring  in  a  "See  newly  discovered  documents 
lising."    Then  the  maskers  ap-  on  Shaki                            ind   Black- 
pear     He  mentions  finally  a  similar  friar-,  w,  s.,  ix  \. 
superaddition  in  a  Morality  of  i  '     dramatists, 
Court    masques    accompanied    by  1603,  infra. 


124  CHILDREN  OF  THE  CHAPEL  AT  BLACKFRIARS 

goddesses,  kings,  queens,  dukes,  countesses,  noble  bridal  festivi- 
ties, courtly  entertainments,  &c,  show  some  of  the  accessory  re- 
quirements for  an  elaborate  theatrical  wardrobe.  Most  of  the 
plays  represented  some  court,  and  all  are  comedies  in  high  life. 
Presented  before  courtiers,  lords,  and  ladies,  and  the  fastidious 
fashionables  of  London,  the  dresses  of  necessity  must  meet  the 
demands  of  the  time.  A  representative  example  may  stand  for 
all.  Since  the  Duke  of  Stettin  was  struck  by  the  costuming  in 
The  Widow's  Tears,  I  select  from  it.  In  I,  ii,  there  is  the  follow- 
ing entrance  of  a  courtly  train  in  state : — Two  gentlemen  ushers 
in  court-livery,  heads  bared,  march  in  dignified  pomp  across  the 
stage,  followed  by  two  Spartan  lords.  These  in  their  turn  serve 
but  as  ushers  to  their  more  splendid  viceregal  master,  who  walks 
after  in  single  state.  The  Countess  Eudora  follows  in  flowing 
silks,  with  her  daughter  at  her  side.  A  waiting-gentlewoman 
bears  the  Countess's  train.  Another  waiting-woman  closes  the 
procession  in  single  dignity. 

So  rich  and  abundant  is  the  apparel  in  this  representative  play 
that  the  German  visitors  remark  upon  it  as  excessive.  Spectacu- 
lar effect,  however,  was  one  of  the  novelties  of  the  Beerbohm 
Tree  sort  that  drew  large  audiences, — even  more  perhaps  than 
the  plots  and  sayings  of  the  plays. 

In  contrast  to  the  public  theatres  where  plays  were  presented 
by  daylight,  the  enclosed  privacy  and  spectacular  elegance  at 
Blackfriars  must  have  been  altogether  as  attractive  as  the  testi- 
mony of  the  time  declares  it.  With  an  aristocratic  audience  filling 
the  house  from  the  seats  in  pit  and  galleries  to  the  lords'  rooms, 
the  fashionable  "smart  set"  sitting  at  right  and  left  on  the  stage, 
and  the  shimmer  of  candlelight  over  the  royal  costumes  of  the 
boy-actors  in  the  midst  of  music,  dramatic  movement,  and  phan- 
tastic  masque,  it  is  little  wonder  that  the  spectacular  effect  was 
enough  "to  ravish  a  man"1  with  delight,  and  to  attract  from  the 
public  theatres  the  most  desirable  part  of  their  audience.2 

Whether  the  requirement  to  present  one  play  a  week  as  men- 
tioned by  Gerschow  in  the  Diary  was  elastic  enough  to  allow  that 
as  the  minimum,  not  the  maximum,  is  not  certain.     Suggestive 

*See     infra.     Children     of     the  *  Supra,  96,  112;  infra,  128,  164- 

Queen's  Revels  at  Blackfriars.  66,  174,  176-77. 


THE  QUEEN'S  REQUIREMENTS  125 

circumstances  indicate  a  possibility  of  twice  a  week.  But  they 
are  insufficient  for  a  final  conclusion.  The  Queen  attended  the 
theatre  on  a  Tuesday, — 29  Dec,  1601,1 — the  Duke  of  Stettin  on 
a  Saturday, — Sept.  18,  1602. '-  The  fact  that  Kirkham  and  part- 
ners in  the  50/.  bond  of  April  20,  1602,  agreed  to  pay  Evans  eight 
shillings  "everye  weeke  weekly  on  Saturdaye  .  .  .  when  & 
soe  often  as  anye  enterludes  plaies  or  showes  shalbe  playde  vsed 
showed  or  published  in  the  greate  hall"3  &c,  indicates  Saturday 
as  a  day  for  acting.  The  same  document  from  which  the  above 
is  quoted  declares  that  a  play  or  interlude  was  presented  there 
Saturday,  16  June,  1605, 4  and  indicates  Saturday  as  the  regular 
time  for  both  acting  and  payment,  from  date  of  the  contract. 
This  fixes  Saturday  as  one  regular  day  of  the  week  for  acting,  but 
does  not  settle  it  as  the  only  day.  The  purpose  in  the  1600  and 
1601  orders  emanating  from  Elizabeth  to  suppress  all  public  the- 
atres but  the  Globe  and  Fortune,  and  to  restrict  these  to  playing 
but  twice  a  week  looks  like  the  attempt  at  a  leveling  process  in 
number  of  representations  as  well  as  in  other  features,  in  con- 
formity with  the  Queen's  fixed  purposes  as  carried  out  in  the  pri- 
vate establishment  of  Blackfriars.8 

1  Supra,  95.  gliae    secundo    quoddom    ludicrum 

2Supra,  106.  anglice   an   interlude   lusum    fuit   in 

8 Supra,  102s.  praedicta.  magna  Aula." — Cf.   docu- 

* "Super  diem  sab&ati   existentem  merit  in  extenso,  in  complete  work, 

sextumdecimum    diem    Junij    Anno  vol.    III. 

regni  domtni  Jacobi  nunc  Regis  An-  "See  infra,  chapter  XII,  entire. 


CHAPTER  X 

SUMMARY  OF  EVIDENCES  ON  THE  OFFICIAL  SANCTION  OF 

BLACKFRIARS 

There  is  abundant  evidence  of  the  official  conduct  of  the  Black- 
friars.  The  Diary  of  the  Duke  of  Stettin  declares  it.1  The  par- 
agraph in  Evans's  Answer  concerning  the  weekly  disbursements 
and  allowances  by  the  Queen's  official  shows  it.2  The  Decree  of 
the  Court  of  Star  Chamber  is  based  upon  it.3  The  provision  for 
only  the  minor  expense  of  rent  and  repairs,  and  the  omission  to 
mention  the  heavier  charges  of  maintenance,  apparel,  and  furni- 
ture in  the  1602  agreement  indicates  it.4 

Even  in  Clifton's  Complaint,  bitter  with  animus  and  Puritan- 
ism, the  same  comes  out  unintentionally.  His  statement  that  the 
Blackfriars  was  set  up,  furnished,  and  maintained  "under  color" 
of  authority  is  an  admission  of  the  fact,  since  the  "color"  proved 
true.5  Other  charges  of  his  not  yet  quoted  are  equally  clear  as 
showing  the  truth  when  the  beclouding  animus  is  blown  away. 
For  example,  when  Clifton  threatened  to  report  the  managers  to 
the  Privy  Council,  they  told  him  "to  complayne  to  whome  he 
would,  &  they  would  aunswer  yt" ;  and  also  "that  yf  the  Queene 
(meaning  your  highnes)  would  not  beare  them  furth  in  that  ac- 
cion  [i.  c,  taking  up  and  using  the  Boys  in  plays  at  Blackfriars], 
she  (meaning  lykwyse  your  highnes)  should  gett  another  to  exe- 
cute her  comission,  for  them."6  Furthermore,  they  declared 
"that  they  had  aucthoritie  sufficient  soe  to  take  any  noble  mans 
sonne  in  this  land,"7  and  "that  were  it  not  for  the  benefitt  they 
made  by  the  sayd  play  howse,  whoe  would  should  serve  the  Chap- 
pell  wth  childeren,  for  them."8 

All  these  replies  show  a  confident  security  in  the  Queen's  grants 

and  permissions. 

1 Supra,  106-7.  Also,  cf.  chapter  5 Supra,  79ff.,  1012-2. 

IX,  entire.  6 Clifton's      Complaint     in      Star 

2 Supra,  98-101.  Chamber,    G.-F.,    130c. 

3 Supra,  813-821.  7  Idem,  131a. 

'Supra,  91-922.  "Ibid;  also,  supra,  81*. 


SUMMARY  OF  EVIDENCES  127 

We  have  seen  Gyles's  authority, — the  Commission  tor  taking 
up  children,1 — and  we  know  how  he  was  allowed  to  interpret  and 
exercise  the  powers  granted.-  He  was  not  only  unhampered  by 
the  Court  of  Star  Chamber,8  but  during  a  period  of  nearly  six 
years  he  carried  out  the  Queen's  will  and  had  her  favor.  The 
Decree  of  the  Court,  cited  by  Kirkham,  has  furnished  evidence 
that  Evans  too  had  official  papers.4  Their  nature  and  purport 
we  know  pretty  cert;' inly  by  the  theatrical  practices  under  them. 
His  leasing  the  theatre  for  twenty-one  years,5  which  meant  the 
rest  of  his  life,  also  shows  he  felt  his  concessions  extended  prac- 
tically in  perpetuum. 

Evidence  has  shown  that  about  twenty-five  to  thirty  boys  were 
boarded  and  lodged  at  Blackfriars,6  while  the  chorus  of  twelve 
Children7  for  the  Chapel  service  were  kept  at  or  near  the  Palace.8 
At  the  theatre  were  provided  school-room,'-'  praeccptorcs,  and 
musici10  for  the  education  and  special  training  of  the  Children 
there.11  As  an  essential  adjunct  to  theatrical  requirements,  an 
extensive  wardrobe  was  supplied,12  as  also  probably  stage-furni- 
ture." The  total  expense  of  these  elaborate  provisions  was  borne 
by  the  royal  exchequer.14 

We  have  seen  that  the  declarations  of  documents  on  certain  of 
these  heads  are  supported  also  by  the  evidence  of  plays. 

I  may  here  add  also  conclusions  that  lie  patent  to  the  observer. 
No  one  could  fail  to  recognize  the  impossibility  of  the  Children 
of  the  Chapel  being  used  as  actors  without  the  Queen's  knowl- 
edge. Students  have  hitherto  recognized  that  such  knowledge 
implied  consent  and  some  sort  of  favor.  All  the  printed  plays  of 
the  Boys  announce  them  as  Children  of  her  Majesty's  Chapel,  or 
Children  of  Blackfriars,  or  both.  The  official  record  concerning 
their  performances  at  Court  speaks  of  them  as  Children  of  the 
Chapel.15  It  was  universally  known  that  they  were  the  Children 
of  the  Chapel  taken  up  for  the  Queen's  service  and  maintained 

lSuPra,  f>0\  'Supra.    Mr.    in".  71. 

'Supra,  70  Tl.                                                  "Supra.    L06   7. 

"Suf>ra,  83.  "Supra.    106-7,    I  13. 

*Supi  "Supra,  ibid;  98   101,   123  24    178 

'"Supra.  57  "Supra.   101". 

"Supra,  75,  73-76.                                         "Supra.  70  71,  98    L0l\  L06-7,  178 

''Supra,  -  "See     Court      Plays      complete 

'Supra,  73.  work.   vol.    II. 


128 


CHILDREN  OF  THE  CHAPEL  AT  BLACKFRIARS 


by  her  at  Blackfriars.  The  public  talked  about  it  as  did  also  the 
Queen's  officials.  Clifton  based  his  suit  on  it,  and  the  Duke  of 
Stettin  gained  such  official  or  semi-official  information  about  it 
as  enabled  him  to  leave  a  record  of  the  conditions  that  later  moved 
him,  as  it  seems,  to  action  in  establishing  a  troop  of  English  actors 
at  his  court  at  heavy  expense.  The  aristocratic  folk  of  London, 
including  members  of  the  Court,  knew  these  conditions  under 
which  Blackfriars  was  established  and  maintained,  and  were  at- 
tracted to  the  plays  there.1  The  Queen  herself,  accompanied  by 
her  court-ladies,  granted  the  grace  of  her  presence  there.2 

In  the  light  of  the  evidence,  the  declaration  of  Gerschow's 
"erbauet"3  is  not  remarkable.  The  simple  explanation  is  that  her 
Majesty  provided  for  the  establishment  or  setting  up4  and  main- 
tenance of  the  theatre  at  Blackfriars  under  royal  favor  and  at 


1  Infra,  164-66,  174,  176-77. 

2  Supra,  95-97. 

3 It  would  be  a  matter  of  great 
interest  if  it  could  be  shown  that 
James  Burbage  in  1596  purchased 
and  set  about  remodeling  the  Black- 
friars in  accordance  with  the 
Queen's  desire  to  set  up  these  boys 
as  actors,  and  that  Gyles,  then  Mas- 
ter at  Windsor,  or  Hunnis,  whom 
Gyles  in  1597  succeeded  as  Master 
of  the  Children  of  the  Chapel  Royal, 
had  at  the  same  time  joined  with 
Evans,  the  lessee  of  the  theatre,  to 
carry  out  these  plans.  But  there  is 
no  evidence  of  it,  I  think,  even  in 
"erbauet"  that  has  set  some  on  a 
false  scent. 

On  the  contrary,  Clifton's  charges 
(though  not  much  reliance  is  to  be 
placed  upon  them  for  reasons  al- 
ready shown,  unless  they  are  cor- 
roborative) indicate  a  date  after 
the  purchase,  while  the  Globe- 
Blackfriars  Share-Papers  of  1635 
declare  in  reference  to  the  purchase 
of  Blackfriars  that  it  "after  was 
leased  out  to  one  Evans"  (supra, 
571).  Also  the  fact  that  Evans 
did  not  take  the  twenty-one-year 
lease  until  he  had  proved  the  ven- 
ture a  success  points  to  the  same. 

But  I  must  admit  the  force  of 
opposing  considerations.  In  re- 
sponse    to     the     petition     of     1596 


against  Blackfriars,  the  Queen's 
Council  did  nothing  (supra,  182,  53). 
The  size  of  Blackfriars  is  against 
supposing  Burbage  intended  it  to 
supplant  "The  Theatre."  The  new 
rooms  built  above  the  theatre  were 
also  peculiarly  adaptable.  But  there 
is  nothing  more  than  unexplained 
suggestiveness  in  these  points.  It 
is  to  be  hoped  that  other  documents, 
traces  of  which  are  known  to  me, 
may  yet  be  brought  to  light  and 
contribute  something  conclusive. 

*"Set  up"  and  "erect"  were  used 
in  a  double  sense  in  and  long  after 
Elizabeth's  time.  Applied  to  the 
theatre  as  a  physical  structure,  the 
sense  was  "build" ;  as  a  company, 
"establish."  The  following,  out  of 
a  large  number  of  examples,  suffice 
to  illustrate : — 

"for  erectinge,  buildinge,  and 
settinge  upp  of  a  newe  howse  and 
stadge  for  a  plaie-howse." — Con- 
tract for  the  Fortune   (1600),  in  J. 

0.  Halliwell-Phillips,  Outlines  of 
the  Life  of  Shakespeare  (9th  ed., 
1890),    I,   305a. 

"nowe  erectinge  a  Newe  Play- 
house in  that  place." — Privy  Coun- 
cil Register,  26  Sept.,  1615,  on  sup- 
pression of  Rosseter's  Blackfriars 
theatre.      See   complete   work,   vols. 

1,  III. 

"...  to  sett  vp  a  Playhowse  in 


SUMMARY  OF  EVIDENCES  129 

royal  expense  as  the  combined  evidences  abundantly  show.  Even 
the  expense  for  the  rental  of  the  building  was  provided  for,  not 
specifically,  but  generally,  by  the  granted  privilege  of  private  gain 
to  the  management. 

The  maintenance  of  a  player  company  and  the  furnishing  of 
apparel  was  the  chief  expense  in  theatrical  business.  With  these 
provided,  not  only  expense  free  but  under  royal  patronage,  and 
with  no  charges  to  be  met  by  the  management  except  the  minor 
sum  of  rental  and  repairs,  there  is  little  wonder  that  the  Queen 
is  regarded  as  "establishing"  this  theatre.  Her  part  in  it  amounts 
to  nothing  less. 

The  results  that  arose  immediately  out  of  this  theatrical  estab- 
lishment,— the  Queen's  official  acts  in  carrying  out  her  purposes, 
the  City's  opposition,  the  unfriendly  attitude  of  the  public  the- 
atres, the  championship  of  their  cause  in  Hamlet,  as  also  the  ori- 
gin of  certain  theatrical  modes  and  customs, — are  reflexively  con- 
tributive  to  a  knowledge  of  the  Queen's  relations  to  Blackfriars, 
and  are  discussed  in  succeeding  chapters. 

the    Blackfrya"." — Idem,    27    Jan.,  "which   after    was   leased   out   to 

1617,    on    suppression    of    the    same  one    Evans    that    first    sett    up    the 

theatre.    Cf.  ut  praeantca  cit.  boyes  commonly  called  the  Queenes 

"A      common      playhowse      then  Majesties    Children    of    the    Chap- 

[1596,      Nov.]      preparing      to      be  pell." — Globe-Blackfriars    Share-pa- 

erected  there." — City's  order  to  sup-  pcrs   of   1635   'n    Halliwell-Phillips, 

press     Blackfriars    (1618-[19] ) ,    in  op.   cit.,  I,  317. 
Halliwell-Phillips,  op.  cit.,  I,  311.  "to    erect   a   company   for    repre- 

"to  errecte,  sett  vpp,  furnish  and  sentation    of   tragedies." — Patent   to 
mayntevne  a  play  house  or  place  in  George  Jolly   (Dec.  24,  1660)   in  E. 
the   Blacke-fryers."— Clifton's   Com-  Malone,   op.   cit..   III. 
plaint    in    Court    of   Star    Chamber  Gerschow's    "erbauet"    is    a    cor- 
net in,  supra,  1012.  rect     translation     of     "set     up"     or 

"lctt    the    said    Playhowse    vnto  "erect"    in    either    the    literal    <ense, 

II curve    Evans,  .  .  .  whoe    intended  or   with   the   meaning  of  "can 

then    [i   e.,   when  lease  was  madel  be  erected  or  set  up,"  "found."  "es- 

pres(  ntlye    to   erect   or   sett   vpp   a  tablish."      His    use    of    the    word 

Companye     of    boyes     ...     in     the  doubtless     arises     from     translating 

same" — Burbage's   Answer    (1612),  "erect"  or  "set  up"   in   the   English 

supra.  57T.  source    of    his    information     (1.    <"., 

cept     the    said    Evans    could  talk   with   officials   or   others)    used 

erect  &  kcepe  a  companye  of  Play-  in  the  sense  of  "establish." 
inge  boyes." — Idem,  supra,  ibid. 


CHAPTER  XI 

THE  CUSTOM  OF  SITTING  ON  THE  STAGE  ORIGINATING  AT 

BLACKFRIARS 

Before  dealing  with  larger  matters  affecting  the  stage  and 
drama,  and  connected  with  the  official  conduct  of  Blackfriars  in 
a  series  of  causes  and  effects,  I  choose  here  to  intercalate  a  chap- 
ter on  the  fashionable  custom  of  sitting  on  the  stage.  The  cus- 
tom shows  the  tendency  of  influences  started  at  Blackfriars.  The 
origin  of  it  is  two-fold, — the  physical  structure  of  the  stage  and 
the  fashionable  character  of  the  audience. 

An  investigation  of  known  evidences  on  the  subject  changes 
previous  views  and  establishes  in  their  stead  certain  facts. 

The  fad  of  sitting  on  the  stage  came  into  vogue  with  the  Black- 
friars in  1597.1  The  earliest  known  allusion  to  it  dates  1598.2  It 
was  a  custom  in  no  other  theatre  in  Elizabeth's  reign.3 

The  supposition  of  Malone4  that  this  fashionable  fad  was  the 
practice  in  all  the  private5  theatres  has  been  so  widely  accepted 
as  a  settled  fact  that  it  may  be  regarded  as  almost  a  universal 
error  among  students  of  the  drama  and  stage.6  The  error  arises 
out  of  the  imitation  of  the  custom  at  two  of  the  later  private  the- 
atres, the  Cockpit  and  Salisbury  Court. 

There  is  no  evidence  for  or  against  the  custom  at  Whitefriars. 
I  must  conclude  that  it  was  unknown  there. 

Paul's  never  admitted  the  practice  under  either  Elizabeth  or 
James.  The  stage  was  too  small.  The  evidence  of  this  is  in  the 
Induction  to  John  Marston's  What  You  Will,  and  is  too  clear-cut 

1  Infra,   131-34.  oning. 

2  Infra,  1321.  6  Specific  references  even  to  re- 
3 Infra,  130-34,  136-38.  cent  publications  containing  this  er- 
*E.  Malone,  Shakespeare  Varior-      ror   would   make  an   unwieldy   and 

um   (ed.  Boswell,  1821),  III,  78.  in  no  way  helpful  list.     Almost  any 

5 The  private  theatres  were  Black-  modern  essay,  doctor's  dissertation, 

friars,    Paul's,   Whitefriars,   Cockpit  book,  or  edition  of  a  play  published 

(Phoenix),    and    Salisbury     Court.  in   England,  Germany,  America,  or 

Writers  have   generally  left   Paul's  France,    and   touching   this   custom, 

and   Whitefriars    out   of  this    reck-  will   furnish  exemplification. 


SITTING  ON  THE  STAGE 


131 


a  declaration  to  be  impeached.1  The  only  other  known  mention 
in  a  play  acted  at  Paul's  is  sufficiently  definite  to  tell  us  that  Paul's 
is  not  meant1  Pise  we  should  have  the  anomaly  of  the  players 
uttering-  gratuitous  self-detraction. 

This  exhausts  both  tin  Paul's  list  of  references,3  and  the  evi- 
dences on  that  side  of  the  question  that  assumes  the  existence  of 
the  custom  in  any  other  theatre  than  the  Blackfriars  up  to  1604. 

Between  [597  and  i<»e>4,  every  identifying  evidence  of  sitting 
on  the  stage  is  associated  with  Blackfriars.  Also,  as  shown  be- 
low, no  public  theatre  of  this  j>eriod  had  the  custom.4  The  logi- 
cal conclusion  is  that  every  allusion  to  the  practice  within  these 
limits  refers  to  Blackfriars,  whether  specifically  so  declared  or 
not. 


1  Atticus  says  to  Philomuse  (sup- 
posed gallants  on  the  stage),  "Let's 
place  ourselves  within  the  curtains, 
for  good  faith  the  stage  is  so  very 
little,  we  shall  wrong  the  general 
eye  else  very  much." — John  Mars- 
ton,  Induction  to  What  You  Will, 
in  Marston's  Works  (ed.  Bullen, 
Acted  at  Paul's  ca. 
April,  1601.  (Cf.  Plays,  complete 
work,  vol.    II.  ) 

"'Courtesan. —  ...  I  know  some 
i'  th'  town  that  have  done  as 
much,  and  there  took  such  a  good 
conceit  of  their  parts  into  the  two- 
penny room,  that  the  actors  have 
been  found  i'  th'  morning  in  a  less 
compass  than  their  stage,  though 
twere  ne'er  so  full  of  gentlemen." 
Thomas  Middleton.  A  Mad  World 
My  Masters,  in  Middleton's  Works 
Bullen,  L886),  [II,  347.  Acted 
at   Paul's  ca.   16061  ?). 

"A  stage-direct  inn  in   W.   Percy's 
The     Faery     Past  or  all     (published 
MS.  by  Joseph  Ilaslewood  for 
The     Roxburghe    Club,     L824)     re- 
.1  word  here    After  mention- 
ing si  rties  to  be  used,  the 
author  says,  "Now  if  so  be  thai  the 
if  any  of   I  hese,  that  be 
outward,    will    not    seme    the    turne 
CUT  e  of  the  People 
on   tli'                    I  hen   you   may   onutt 
•  '1   Properties"  &c. 

Wh  Percy    mean? 

It  is  nol  infrequently  supposed  that 
this  play  was  acted  at    Paul's.     The 


author  in  writing  had  in  mind  all 
possible  companies  that  might  ac- 
cept his  plays,  and  would  have  been 
glad  to  appear  at  Paul's.  This  is 
shown  by  "A  note  to  the  Master 
of  the  Children  of  Powles"  (printed 
in  Collier,  op.  cit*  Ill,  181)  at  the 
mantes;  also  in  the 
directions  concerning  the  double 
closing  of  The  Faery  Pastor  all  (in 
op.  cit.  supra)  and  in  the  direction 
for  the  Prologue  in  The  Cuck- 
queanes  and  Cuckolds  Errants 
(idem  ). 

But  there  is  no  evidence  that  The 
Faery  Pastorall  or  any  other  play 
in  the  MS.  volume  by  Percy  was 
ever  acted  by  any  company.  His 
works  doubtless  belong  to  that  nu- 
merous host  (cf.  Collier,  op.  at.1 
1 1 1.  233  32 )  that,  for  unsuitable- 
ness  or  other  reasons,  never  trod 
the  boards.  Hence  1  sel  no  special 
value  upon  the  elaborate  and  im- 
possible   stage-directions    or    other 

items    taken    seriously    by    many    as 

touching  vital  points  m  stage-his- 
tory. Bui  see  on  the  o  mtrai 
Grabau,  Zw  Englischen  Buhne  mm 
1600  in  Shakespeare-Jahrbuch 
(  1902),  XXXVIII,  285;  G  I 
nolds.  Some  Principles  of  Elisa- 
bethan    Staging,    in    Modem    Phi- 

5),       II.      607       (later 

published  separately);  ti    P.  Baker, 
The    Development    of   Shakespeare 
as  <»  Dramatist   |  r.<". 
'Inft 


132  CHILDREN  OF  THE  CHAPEL  AT  BLACKFRIARS 

About  1598,  Sir  John  Davies  in  a  satirizing-  sonnet-epigram 
gives  the  first  evidence.1  Here  the  gallant  is  conceived  as  at  the 
Blackfriars,  on  the  stage  (1.  3)  ;  or  at  the  public  theatre,  over  the 
stage  (I.4). 

Ben  Jonson  twice  in  Every  Man  out  of  his  Humour  (ca.  Aug., 
1599,2  at  the  Globe)  satirizing  the  fashionable  courtier,  gallant, 
and  would-be  gentleman,  gives  this  practice  a  caustic  touch.3  In 
the  Induction  to  Cynthia's  Revels  at  Blackfriars  the  following 
year  {ca.  April,  16004)  Jonson  uses  "one  of  your  genteel  audi- 
tors" of  the  unfriendly  sort  (not  on  the  stage)  to  break  a  jest 
over,  and  follows  it  up  with  a  dialogue  flattering  to  the  well- 
wishing  stage-patron  of  the  house.5 


1  In  Rufum. 

Rufus  the  Courtier  at  the  theatre 

Leauing  the  best  and  most  conspic- 
uous place, 

Doth  either  to  the  stage  himselfe 
transfer, 

Or  through  a  grate  doth  show  his 
doubtful    face. 

For  that  the  clamorous  frie  of  Innes 

of  court, 
Filles    vp    the    priuate    roomes    of 

greater   prise: 
And   such   a   place   where   all   may 

haue   resort, 
He  in  his  singularitie  doth  despise. 

Yet  doth  not  his  particular  humour 

shunne, 
The  common  stews  and  brothels  of 

the  towne, 
Though  all  the  world  in  troupes  do 

thither    runne 
Cleane  and  vncleane,  the  gentle  and 

the   clowne : 

Then  why  should  Rufus  in  his 
pride   abhorre 

A  common  seate  that  loues  a  com- 
mon whore. 

—Sir  John  Davies,  Epigram  3  (be- 
fore 1599),  in  Isham  Reprints  (ed. 
Charles    Edmonds,    1870),   sig.    3. 

This  careful  reprint  differs  from 
the  partial  quotation  of  the  same 
offered  in  Malone,  op.  cit.,  Ill,  81. 


2  See  infra,  Plays,  complete  work, 
vol.  II. 

3  Boorish  Sogliardo,  characterized 
by  Jonson  as  being  "so  enamored 
of  the  name  of  gentleman  that  he 
will  have  it  though  he  buys  it,"  finds 
himself  in  tow  of  Carlo  Buffone : — ■ 

Carlo.  .  .  \  when  you  come  to 
plays,  be  humorous,  look  with  a 
good  starched  face,  and  ruffle  your 
brow  like  a  new  boot,  laugh  at 
nothing  but  your  own  jests,  or  else 
as  the  noblemen  laugh.  That 's  a 
special  grace  you  must  observe. 

Sogliardo. — I  warrant  you,  sir. 

Car. — Ay,  and  sit  on  the  stage 
and  flout,  provided  you  have  a  good 
suit. 

Sog. — O,  I  '11  have  a  suit  only 
for  that,  sir. 

— Every  Man  out  of  his  Humour, 
in  Jonson's  Works  (ed.  Gifford- 
Cunningham),   I,  i,  p.   72. 

Fastidious  Brisk. — Why,  assure 
you,  signior,  rich  apparel  has  strange 
virtues :  it  makes  him  that  hath  it 
without  means,  esteemed  for  an  ex- 
cellent wit:  .  .  .  takes  possession 
of  your  stage  at  your  new  play. — 
Idem,  II,  ii,  p.  94fe. 

*Supra,  75. 

5 3  Child  [Sal  Pavy].— Stay;  you 
shall  see  me  do  another  now,  but 
a  more  sober,  or  better-gathered 
gallant ;     that    is,     as     it    may    be 


SITTING  ON  THE  STAGE 


133 


Thomas  Dekker  later,  remembering  Jonson's  satire  upon  him1 
in  Poetaster  (ea.  April,  1601-)  and  the  punishment  he  himself 
administered  through  Satirumastix3  (summer,  1601)  by  having 
Horace  [Jonson]  tossed  in  a  blanket,  unequivocally  in  this  in- 
stance has  in  mind  the  custom  of  sitting  on  the  stage  as  being  at 
Blackfriars.4 

In  1 60 1,  Hamlet,  in  the  excitement  of  bitter  joy  at  the  close  of 
the  play  before  the  King,  finds  in  the  custom  a  means  of  satiric 
exultation.5  Indeed  the  whole  play  within  the  play, — not  as  a 
new  form,  for  it  was  old,  but  in  manner, — seems  intended  for 
Blackfriars  done  in  miniature,  with  grandees,  even  of  the  Ham- 
let sort,  in  patronizing  display,  familiar  ease,  and  chorus-com- 
ment on  the  mimic  stage. 

George  Chapman's  All  Fools,  at  Blackfriars  after  close  of  the 
1603  plague,  twice  shows  us  the  audience  on  the  stage.  The  Pro- 
logue defers  humbly  to  their  judgments  and  craves  their  special 


thought,  some  friend,  or  well- 
wisher  to  the  house :  and  here  I 
enter. 

1  Child  [Nat  Field].— What, 
upon  the  stage  too? 

2  Child  [Jack  Underwood]. — 
Yes ;  and  I  step  forth  like  one  of 
the  children,  and  ask  you,  Would 
you  have  a  stool,  sir? 

— In  this  quotation  I  have  used 
the  Gifford-Cunningham  edition, 
and  inserted  the  names  of  the  Boy- 
actors  who  played  these  parts  in 
the  first  representation  at  Black- 
friars. They  are  easily  determin- 
able   from   the   Induction   itself. 

'Infra,  171. 

*Subra,  75\ 

'Infra,  171. 

'"Now  sir,  if  the  writer  be  a 
fellow  that  hath  either  epigrammed 
you,  or  hath  had  a  flirt  at  your 
mistris,  or  hath  brought  either  your 
feather,  or  your  red  beard,  or  your 
little  '  n  the  stage,  you  shall 

disgrace  linn  nurse  then  by  tossing 
him  in  a  hlanckct.  <>r  giving  him 
the  bastinado  in  a  Tauerne,  if,  in 
die  middle  of  His  play    (bee  it   Pas- 


toral or  Comedy,  Morall  or  Trag- 
edie)  you  rise  with  a  screwd  and 
discontented  face  from  your  stoole 
to  be  gone:  no  matter  whether  the 
scenes  be  good  or  no ;  the  better 
they  are  the  worse  do  you  distaste 
them :  and,  beeing  on  your  feet, 
sneake  not  away  like  a  coward,  but 
salute  all  your  gentle  acquaintance, 
that  are  spread  either  on  the  rushes, 
or  on  stooles  about  you,  and  draw 
what  troope  you  can  from  the  stage 
after  you."' — Thomas  Dekker.  How 
a  Gallant  should  behaue  himself 
in  a  Play-house,  chapter  VI  of  The 
Cuts  Horn-Booke  (1609),  in  The 
Non-Dramatic  Works  of  Thomas 
Dekker  (ed.  Grosart,  The  Hut::  Li- 
brary, 1885),   II,   253. 

""Would  not  this  Sir,  and  a  For- 
rest of  Feathers,  if  the  rest  of  my 
Fortunes  turne  Turke  with  me; 
with  two  Prouinciall  Roses  <>n  my 
rac'd  Shooes,  gel  mo  a  Fellowship 
in  a  crie  of  Players  sir"  Mr.  Wil- 
liam Shakespeare-  Comedies,  His- 
tories cr  Tragedies  (folio  1623), 
The  Tragedie  of  Hamlet.  [III.  ii] 
p.    2G8&. 


134 


CHILDREN  OF  THE  CHAPEL  AT  BLACKFRIARS 


favor.1  The  Epilogue  shows  them  sitting  less  wise  than  they 
were  flatteringly  invited  to  be.2 

In  the  spring  of  1603,  Marston's  The  Malcontent  apparently 
touched  the  matter,  though  the  present  form  of  the  play  doubt- 
fully shows  the  manner  of  it.3  The  Globe  having  annexed  The 
Malcontent  played  it  in  1604  with  a  special  Induction,  wherein 
the  fixed  privilege  of  sitting  on  the  Blackfriars  stage  is  specific- 
ally declared,  and  the  similar  privilege  at  the  Globe  explicitly 
denied.4 

These  are  the  known  references  to  the  custom  of  sitting  on  the 
stage  up  to  1604.     They  establish  its  origin  in  the  Blackfriars. 

This  fashion  is  not  to  be  confused  with  a  certain  practice  orig- 
inating in  the  public  theatres.  We  know  there  was  in  more  than 
one  of  them  the  custom  of  sitting  "above"  or  "over"  the  stage  at 
the  rear.5    This  is  shown  in  the  De  Witt — Van  Buchell  sketch  of 


1  Great  are  the  gifts  given  to  united 
heads, 

To  gifts,  attire,  to  fair  attire,  the 
stage 

Helps  much ;  for  if  our  other  au- 
dience  see 

You  on  the  stage  depart  before  we 
end; 

Our  wits  go  with  you  all,  and  we 
are  fools. 

— Shepherd's   edition    (1874),  p.  77. 

2  We  can  but  bring  you  meat  and 

set  you  stools 
And  to  our  best  cheer  say  you  all 

are    (         )    welcome. 
— Idem,  p.   77. 

3  Compare  the  Induction,  "Black- 
friars has  almost  spoiled  Black- 
friars for  feathers"  and  the  follow- 
ing in  II,  ii : — "no  fool  but  hath 
his  feather."  The  allusion  is  to 
the  prevalent  custom,  as  shown  by 
other  examples,  of  gallants  wear- 
ing on  the  stage  ornamental  feath- 
ers, costing  sometimes  several 
pounds. 

*The  Induction  opens  with  these 
data,  thus : — 

Tire-man. — Sir,  the  gentlemen 
will  be  angry  if  you  sit  here. 

Sly. — Why,  we  may  sit  upon  the 
stage  at  the  private  house.  Thou 
dost    not    take   me    for   a    country- 


gentleman,  dost?  dost  think  I  fear 
hissing? 

[See  further  infra,  138.] 
5  These  were  the  choice  places. 
It  is  most  probable  that  the  actors 
of  England  of  that  day  acted  for 
art's  sake,  as  their  heirs  the  mod- 
ern German  actors  do,  and  conse- 
quently faced  the  rear  or  sides  as 
often  as  the  front,  if  the  faithful 
representation  of  the  situation  re- 
quired it.  To  Americans  and  to 
many  Englishmen,  accustomed  to 
spectacular  display  and  studied  ar- 
tificiality in  acting,  with  the  funda- 
mental rule  "face  the  audience,"  it 
is  as  preposterous  to  think  of  these 
rear  seats  "over"  the  stage  as  the 
best  as  it  is  astounding  and  con- 
vincing in  its  artistry  to  see  the 
modern  German  actor  face  any  di- 
rection the  case  requires,  in  utter 
disregard  of  the  audience  but  with 
all  faithfulness  to  the  life  he  is  por- 
traying, so  that  you  forget  you  are 
in  the  theatre,  and  feel  that  you 
are  living  through  real  experiences. 
But  these  rear  seats  "over"  the 
stage  were  choice,  not  merely  for 
hearing  (for  which  we  should  be 
glad  to  believe  they  were  mainly 
used),  but  most  especially  for  be- 
ing seen   and  making  a   display  of 


SITTING  ON  THE  STAGE 


136 


the  Swan  (ca.  1596),  the  Roxana  print  (1632),  and  the  Red  Bull 
picture  (1672).  Skialetheia  or  a  Shadow  of  Truth  (1598)  de- 
clares it.1  The  epigram  already  quoted  from  Sir  John  Davies 
(ca.  1598)  refers  to  the  same,-  and  another  epigram  by  him  uses 
the  same  or  same  sort  of  person  for  ridicule^  as  is  satirized  in 
epigram  53  of  Skialetheia. 

Jests  to  Make  you  Merry,  by  Thomas  Dekker  and  George  Wil- 
kins,  testifies  to  the  practice  of  this  custom  in  some  unidentifiable 
theatre  in  1607.4 


fine   dress,   as   numerous   contempo- 
rary  witnesses   testify. 

Of  Cornelius 
See  you  him  yonder  who  sits  o're 

the    stage, 
With   the  Tobacco-pipe  now  at  his 

mouth  ? 
It    is    Cornelius   that   braue   gallant 

youth, 
Who  is  new  printed  to  this  fangled 
age; 
He  wears  Ierkin  cudgeled  with 

gold  lace, 
A   profound   slop,  a   hat  scarce 

pipkin    high, 
For    boots,    a    paire    of    dagge 

cafes ;    his    face, 
Furr'd     with     Cad-s-beard :     his 
poynard  on  his  thigh. 
He  wallows  in  his  walk  his  slop  to 

grace, 
Swears  by  the  Lord,  daines  no  sal- 
utation 
But  to  some  iade  that 's  sick  of  his 

own  fashion, 
As     fareivcll    sweet     Captainc,     or 
(boy)   come  apace: 
Yet     this     Sir     Beuis,    or     the 

fayery  Knight 
Put  vp  the  lie  because  he  durst 
in  it  tight. 
—  [Fdward  Guilpin],  Skialetheia  Of 
A  Shadowe  of  Truth,  in  certaine 
Epigrams  and  Satyrcs  (1598),  epi- 
gram  53 

'Supra,   132',  1.  4. 

In  Sillam 
Who   dares    affirm    that    Silla    dares 

not  fight? 
When    1    dare   sware  he  dares  ad- 

uenture  more 


then  the  most  braue,  and  most  al- 

daring   wight, 
that    euer    armes    whith    resolution 
bore, 
He  that  dare  touch  the  most  vn- 

wholsome  whore, 
that    euer    was    retirde    into    the 

spittle, 
And   dares  court  wenches   stand- 
ing at  a  dore, 
The  portion  of  his  wit  being  pass- 
ing little. 
He     that     dares     giue    his     dearest 

friend  offences, 
Which     other     valiant     fooles     doe 

feare  to  do, 
And   when   a    feuer   doth   confound 

his  senses, 
Dare    eate    raw    biefe    and    drinke 
strong  wine   thereto. 
He    that    dares    take    Tobaco    on 

the    stage, 
Dares  man  a  whore  at  noon-day 

through   the   street 
Dares    daunce    in    Poules,   and   in 

tins    formall    age, 
Dares  say  and  doe  what  euer  is 
vnnK  ete, 
Whom   feare  or  shame  could  neuer 

yet  affright, 
Who  dares  affirme  that  Silla  dares 

not  fight? 
— Sir  John  Davies,  ''p.  cit.,  epigram 
28. 

4"A   wench    hailing  :    face, 

a  good  body,  and  good  clothes  <>n. 
but  of  had  conditions,  sitting  one 
day  in  the  two  penny  roome  of  a 
play-house,  &  a  number  of  jrong 
Gentlemen  about  her.  againsl  all 
whom  she  maintained  talke,  One 
that  sat  ouer  the  stage  sayd  to  his 


136  CHILDREN  OF  THE  CHAPEL  AT  BLACKFRIARS 

From  the  stage-requirements  of  the  Globe  and  Fortune,  we  are 
warranted  in  concluding,  at  least  tentatively,  that  such  references 
as  these  last  three  do  not  relate  to  those  theatres.  Nearer  ap- 
proach to  identification  seems  not  now  possible. 

How  late  this  practice  of  sitting  above  the  stage  at  the  public 
theatres  or  at  any  one  of  them  was  still  maintained  I  do  not  know. 

Just  when,  if  ever,  the  Blackfriars  fashion  was  taken  up  in 
emulation  by  any  one  of  the  public  theatres  cannot  be  said.  Their 
stages  were  not  all  alike,  nor  all  adaptable  to  similar  conditions. 
There  is  doubt  whether  the  custom  spread  widely  amongst  them. 
The  evidence  of  its  existence  there  at  all  is  most  slender.  It  was 
not  allowed  at  the  Globe  in  1604,  when  The  Malcontent  was 
played.1  I  question  whether  it  was  ever  tolerated  there.  The 
introductory  address  To  the  great  Variety  of  Readers,  signed  by 
John  Heminge  and  Henrie  Condell,  prefixed  to  the  1623  folio 
edition  of  Shakespeare's  plays,  singles  out  the  Blackfriars  and 
the  Cockpit,  the  two  private  theatres  then  in  existence,  the  first 
of  which  their  company  owned,  and  does  not  name  the  company's 
other  house,  the  Globe,  as  the  place  of  this  practice.2  Moreover, 
the  physical  conditions  of  the  Globe  building  and  stage,  with  the 
choicest  seats  in  the  gentlemen's  rooms  at  right  and  left,  could 
not  have  allowed  the  presence  of  an  intervening  audience  of  gal- 
lants any  better  at  a  later  date  than  in  1604.  There  is,  however, 
one  direct  evidence  apparently  on  the  other  side,  which  may  here 
be  subjoined.3    But  as  it  is  merely  a  hypothetical  case,  in  a  satire 

friend :  doe  you  not  thinke  that  yon-  Black-Friers,   or   the   Palace-garden 

der  flesh  will   stincke  anon,  hauing  Beare, 

so  many  flyes  blowing  vpon  it?" —  Are  subiects  fittest  to  content  your 

Thomas  Dekker,  op.  cit.,  II,  292.  -            care. 

1  Supra,  1344.  An  amorous  discourse,  a  Poets  wit, 

2  "Censure  will  not  driue  a  Trade,  Doth  humor  best  your  melancholy  fit. 
or  make  the  Iacke  go.  And  though  The  Globe  to  morrow  acts  a  pleas- 
you  be  a  Magistrate  of  wit,  and  sit  ant  play, 

on  the  Stage  at  Black-Friers,  or  the  In  hearing  it  consume  the  irkesome 

Cock-pit,  to  arraigne  Playes  dailie,  day. 

know,  these  Playes  haue  had  their  Goe  take  a  pipe  of  To.  the  crowded 

triall  alreadie,  and  stood  out  all  Ap-  stage 

peales."  Must  needs  be  graced  with  you  and 

sYong  Gallants  glories  soone  will  _          y°rur  PaSe- 

Ladies  charm  Sweare  for  a  place  with  each  con- 

S'foot  walke  the  streets,  in  cringing  trolling  foole, 

vse  your  wits  And  send  your  hackney  seruant  for 

Suruey    your    Loue,    which    in    her  a  stoole. 

window   sits.  — Henry  Hutton,  Folhe  s  Anatomie, 


SITTING  ON  THE  STAGE  137 

at  that,  I  doubt  its  value.  It  is  even  questionable  whether  this, 
upon  close  examination,  can  be  taken  to  mean  the  Globe  more 
than  the  Blackfriars.  Besides,  the  advice  is  the  same  as  given  a 
little  while  before  in  the  same  work  concerning  Blackfriars.1 

Middleton's  The  Roaring  Girl,  acted  at  the  Fortune  ca.  1610,2 
satirizes  the  practice  throughout  the  greater  part  of  the  first  scene 
of  act  II,  and  specifically  ridicules3  it  as  belonging  to  the 
private  stage.'  No  further  evidence  comes  from  or  relates  to 
the  Fortune. 

From  the  evidence  given  and  in  the  absence  of  contradictory 
testimony,  I  conclude  that  neither  the  Globe  nor  the  Fortune  made 
provision  to  entertain  visitors  on  the  stage.  To  have  done  so 
would  have  required  a  probable  rebuilding  of  the  stage,  or  of  the 
best  paying  part  of  the  theatre,  the  gentlemen's  rooms  at  the  sides. 

The  structure  of  certain  stages  furnishes  further  negative  evi- 
dence. The  Fortune.5  eighty  feet  square  outside  and  fifty-five 
within,  built  in  other  respects  on  the  model  of  the  Globe,  had  a 
stage  forty-three  feet  wide  which  extended  in  depth  to  the  middle 
of  the  yard,  i.  e.,  excluding  the  tiring-house,  twenty-seven  and 
one-half  feet.    At  left  and  right  of  the  stage  was  the  "orchestra"3 

or  Satyres  and  Satyrical  Epigrams  4This     meant,     of     course,     the 

(1619),  sign.   B2.  Blackfriars.        It      is      not      certain 

dancing     attendance       on       the  whether  the  Cockpit  was  yet  built, 

Blackfriers  stage,  which  was  the  next  theatre  to  take 

Call  for  a  stoole  with  a  command-  up  the  fashion. 

ing  rage.  "For  details  see  Contract  for  the 

— Idem,  sign.  A.     See  infra,  139*-40.  Fortune    in     1 1 alliwt-ll- Phillips,    op. 

'Published    1611    with    the    state-  cit.,    I,    304-306.      See    also    plat    of 

ment  on  the  title-page,  "As  it  hath  the  Fortune,  supra.  50-.">l. 

lately  beene  Acted  on  the  Fortune-  "Dr.       Cecil       Brodmeier,       Die 

stage  by  the   Prince  his  Players."  Shakespeare   Bi'thne    nach   den   alten 

[At  the  feather-shop  Buhnenanweisungen     (Diss.     Halle, 

Jack  Dapper.— Pooh,  I  like  it  not.  l904)>      loa.      following      Pro! 

Mistress  Tiltyard.— -What  feather  Brandl,     evidently     misunderstand- 

is't  you'd  have  sir?  ,nK  the   designation    "orchestra"   in 

These  are  most    worn  and  most  in  the  Swan  sketch  as  having  not  the 

fashion:  Latin    sense   but   the   modern    mean- 

Amongst    the    beaver-gallants,    the  >"£•   Places   tlu'   n,u-u'   here!!     To 

,.    riders  De    sure.    Brodmeier    does    tlOl    deal 

The    private    stage's    audience     the  witM  thc  Fortune      Bui  as  lie  melts 

twelvepenny-stool    gentlemen,  the  stages  of  "The    rheatre,     Cur- 

I  can   inform  you   'tis  the  general  ta,n-    Globe,    and    Blackfriars    into 

•  !,cr  one.    the    addition    ^i    the    I-ortune 

—Thomas    Middlet.m.    The   Roaring  cannot    disturb    his    resulting    com- 

Girl.    II.    1.    151-56,    In    Middleton's  posite.     Cf.  supra.  UT,  44-45. 
Works  <ed.  Bullen,  L885)   IV 


138  CHILDREN  OF  THE  CHAPEL  AT  BLACKFRIARS 

(in  the  Latin  sense),  or  place  of  the  four  rooms  for  gentlemen.1 
There  was  an  aisle  six  feet  wide  between  these  chief  auditors  and 
the  stage.2  The  sketch  of  the  Swan  shows  a  similar  arrangement, 
and  the  Hope  was  modeled  after  the  Swan.3 

Physical  conditions  thus  indicate  the  stages  of  at  least  four* 
public  theatres  were  open  to  the  chief  auditors  at  right  and  left. 
An  audience  of  gallants  on  the  stage  at  either  side,  then,  would 
have  cut  off  the  view  from  the  gentlemen's  rooms.  This  is  the 
condition  the  Tire-man  refers  to  in  the  Induction  to  The  Malcon- 
tent when  he  tells  Sly,  "Sir,  the  gentlemen  will  be  angry  if  you 
sit  here."5 

These  negative  conditions  and  the  absence  of  unquestionable 
affirmative  testimony  seem  sufficient  to  conclude  with  some  certi- 
tude that  the  Globe,  Fortune,  Swan,  and  Hope,  at  least,  did  not 
foster  the  Blackfriars  custom.  The  Rose,  a  small  theatre,  went 
out  of  the  reckoning  about  1603-4,6  and  the  conditions  at  the  Red 
Bull  are  uncertain.  There  remains  the  Curtain  alone  as  an  un- 
known quantity. 

Against  these  considerations  of  physical  conditions,  there  are 
two  bits  of  evidence  so  stated  as  to  imply  that  the  practice  may 
have  been  general  in  public  theatres.  Both  are  in  satires ; — not 
reliable  repositories  of  fact.  The  one  from  Middleton,7  in  its 
drive  at  the  would-be  gallant  posing  before  the  public,  seems  the 
more  convincing  of  the  two.  The  notorious  gull  or  fine  fop,  lover 
of  display  and  perennial  subject  of  the  laugher's  scorn,8  is  like- 

'See  Contract,  u.  s.,  293.  John       Taylor,       the      Water-poet, 
"'Supra,  45,  and  plat,  50-51.  Works    (1630),    172,    The    Water- 
3Supra,  314,  425.  men's   Suit,   indicates    it   existed   in 
4  The  Red   Bull  picture  seems  to  1613,      though      closed.      And      Sir 
indicate  a  fifth.     But  as  it  does  not  Henry  Herbert's  Office-book  shows 
show    the    gentlemen's    rooms,    but  that   after   1620   it  was   occasionally 
does    show   people   in   the   aisles   at  used    for    prize-fighters.      See    Ma- 
right    and    left,    I    omit    it.      If   the  lone,   op.   cit.,  Ill,   56. 
Red    Bull    had    gentlemen's    rooms,  7"But  turning  my  legacy  to  you- 
then  it   should   be   included   in   the  ward,   Barnaby  Burning-glass,  arch 
list.  tobacco-taker   of  England,   in  ordi- 
5 Supra,  134*.  naries,  upon  stages  both  public  and 
6  No  plays   are  heard  of  here  at  private,"     &c. — The     Devil's     Last 
a  later  date.     See  also  Henslowe's  Will  and  Testament,  in  The  Black 
talk    with    Thomas    Pope,    June    25,  Book     (1604),    Middleton's    Works 
1603,    on    pulling    down    "the    littell  (ed.   Bullen,  1885-86),  VIII,  43. 
Roosse"   in   Henslowe's   Diary    (ed.  8Out  of  the  scores  of  satires  and 
W.   W.   Greg,   1904),  I,   178.  jests  on  this  sort  of  person,  partly 
But    it    was    not    pulled    down.  real  and  partly  imaginary  but  gen- 


SITTING  ON  THE  STAGE 


139 


wise  satirized  in  the  example  from  Dekker,  which  is  a  part  of  the 
advice  to  such  pretended  gallants  how  to  make  themselves,  if  pos- 


erally  exaggerated,  the  following 
three  as  the  best  (or  the  worst) 
may  here  be  quoted. 

Meditations  of  a  Gull. 
See    yonder    melancholy    gentleman, 
Which    hoodwinck'd    with    his    ha'., 

alone  doth   sit, 
Thinke  what  he  thinkes,  and  tel  me 

if  you   can, 
What  great  affaires  trouble  his  lit- 
tle wit: 
He  thinkes  not  of  the  warre  twixt 

France  &  Spain, 
Whether  it  be  for  Europes  good 

or  ill, 
Nor    whether    the    empire   can    it 

selfe  maintaine 
Against    the    Turkish    powre    en- 
croching  still, 
Nor    what    great    towne    in    all    the 

nether  lands, 
The    States    determine    to    besiege 

this  spring, 
Nor  how  the  Scottish  pollicie  now 

standes, 
Nor  what  becomes  of  th'  Irish  mu- 
tining: 
But    he    doth    seriouslie    bethinke 

him  whether 
Of   the   guld   people   he   be   more 

esteemde, 
For   his   long   cloake,    or    for  his 

great  blacke  feather, 
By  which  each  gull  is  now  a  gal- 
lant deemde. 
Or  of  a  lourney  he  deliberates, 
To    Paris    garden    cock-pit,    or    the 

play, 
Or  how  to  steak-  a  dogge  he  medi- 

Or   what   he    shall   vnto   his   mistris 
say : 
Yet  with  these  thoughts  he  thinks 

himself  mosl  tit 
To  he  of  counsel]  with  a  King  for 
wit. 
— Sir  John  Davies,  Epigram  47  (be- 
fore 1599),  in  I  sham  Reprints  (ed. 
rles   Edmonds,   1870). 

Epigram 

To  Candidus. 
Friend   Candidus,  thou   often   doost 


demaund. 
What  humours  men  by  gulling  vn- 

derstand : 
Our     English     Martiall     hath     full 

pleasantly, 
[*'.  (•.,  Sir  John  Davies  in  Epigram 

47,   supra] 
In    his   close    nips    described   a   gull 

to  thee. 
I'le  follow  him,  and  set  downe  my 

conceit 
What  a  Gull  is:  oh  word  of  much 

receit ! 
He  is  a  gull,  whose  indiscretion 
Cracks    his   purse   strings    to   be   in 

fashion ; 
He  is  a  gull,  who  is  long  in  taking 

roote 
In  barraine  soyle,  where  can  be  but 

small   frtute : 
lie  is  a  gull,  who  runnes  himselfe 

in  debt. 
For    twelve    dayes    wonder,    hoping 

so   to   get ; 
He  is  a  gull,  whose  conscience  is  a 

block, 
Not  to  take  interest,  but  wastes  his 

stock  : 
He   is  a   gull,   who   cannot   haue   a 

whore, 
But    brags    how     much    he    spends 

upon   her  score  ; 
He  is  a  gull,  that  for  commodite 
Payes  tenne  times  ten.  and  sells  the 

same  for  three : 
He  is  a  gull,  who  passing  finicall, 
Perseth  each  word  to  be  rhetorical] : 
And    to    conclude,    who    selfe    con- 
ceitedly 
Thinkes    al    men    guls,    ther*S    none 

more    gull    then    he. 

—[Edward  Guilpin],  SkioUtheia. 
Or,  A  shadowe  of  Truth,  in  c*r- 
taine  Epigrams  and  Satyres  ( Lond. 
1598),  sign.  A3. 


Epigram   L 


mirror   of 


What    have    we    here?1 
this 

Acting   a    Comicks    part    vpon    the 

stage. 
What    gallant's     this3       His    nature 

doth    vnfold 


140 


CHILDREN  OF  THE  CHAPEL  AT  BLACKFRIARS 


sible,  more  ridiculous  and  absurd  than  they  already  are.1  The 
author  mentions  both  public  and  private  stages  as  places  on  which 
such  gallant  may  display  himself.2 

Dekker's  satire  was  apparently  written  while  the  Boys  held  the 
Blackfriars  boards,  for  the  author  has  constantly  them  and  their 
performances  in  mind,  and  once  shows  how  the  quarrel  with  Jon- 
son  in  1601  still  rankles.3  Yet  he  confuses  throughout  the  chap- 
ter both  private  and  public  theatres.* 

Him,    to   be    framed    in    Phantastes 

mold. 
Lo    how    he    iets;    how    sterne    he 

shewes  his  face, 
Whiles    from    the   wall    he   passen- 
gers doth  chase. 
Muse  touch   not  this  man,  nor  his 

life  display, 
Ne  with  sharpe  censure  gainst  his 

vice  inuey : 
For,  sith  his  humor  can  no  iesting 

brooke, 
He   will   much   lesse   endure  a   Sa- 

tyre's  book. 
Beschrew    me,    sirs,     I     durst    not 

stretch  the  streete, 
Gaze  thus  on  conduits  scrowls,  base 

vintners  beat 
Salute  a   Mad-dame  with  a  french 


cringe  grace, 

Greete  with  God-dam-me,  a  con- 
fronting face, 

Court  a  rich  widow,  or  my  bonnet 
vaile, 

Conuerse  with  Bankrupt  Mercers  in 
the  Gaile, 

Nor  in  a  Metro  shew  my  Cupid's 
fire, 

Being  a  french-poxt  Ladies  apple- 
squire; 

Least  taxing  times  (such  folly  be- 
ing spide) 

With  austere  Satyres  should  my 
vice   deride. 

Nere  breath,  I  durst  not  vse  my 
Mistrisse   Fan, 

Or  walke  attended  with  a  Hackney- 
man, 

Dine  with  Duke  Humfrey  in  de- 
cayed Paules, 

Confound  the  streetes  with  Chaos 
of  old  brawles, 

Dancing  attendance  on  the  Black- 
friers  stage, 

Call  for  a  stoole  with  a  command- 


ing rage, 
Nor  in  the  night  time  ope  my  Ladies 

latch, 
Lest  I  were  snared  by  th'  all-seeing 

Watch : 
Which  Critick  knaves,  with  Lynxes 

pearcing  eye, 
Into  mens  acts  obseruently  do  prye. 
— Henry  Hutton,  Follie's  Anatomie, 
or  Satyres  and  Satyrical  Epigrams 
(1619),  sign.  A. 

1See.  How  a  Gallant  should  be- 
haue  himself  in  a  Play-house,  chap- 
ter VI  of  The  Guls  Home-book 
(1609),  in  The  Non-Dramatic 
Works  of  Thomas  Dekker  (ed. 
Grosart,  Huth  Library,  1885),  II, 
246-55. 

2  "Whether  therefore  the  gather- 
ers of  the  publique  or  priuate  Play- 
house stand  to  receiue  the 
afternoones  rent,  let  our  Gallant 
(hauing  paid  it)  presently  aduance 
himselfe  vp  to  the  Throne  of  the 
Stage.  I  meane  not  into  the  Lords 
roome  (which  is  now  but  the  Stages 
Suburbs)  :  No,  those  boxes,  by  the 
iniquity  of  custome,  conspiracy  of 
waiting-women  and  Gentlemen-Ush- 
ers, that  there  sweat  together,  and 
the  couetousnes  of  Sharers,  are  con- 
temptibly thrust  into  the  reare,  and 
much  new  Satten  is  there  dambd, 
by  being  smothered  to  death  in 
darknesse.  But  on  the  very  Rushes 
where  the  Comedy  is  to  daunce,  yea, 
and  vnder  the  state  of  Cambises 
himselfe  must  our  feathered  Es- 
tridge,  like  a  piece  of  Ordnance,  be 
planted  valiantly  (because  impu- 
dently) beating  downe  the  mewes 
and  hisses  of  the  opposed  rascal- 
ity."— Idem,  247-48. 

3  Supra,  133*. 

*  "By    sitting    on    the    stage,    you 


SITTING  ON  THE  STAGE  HI 

It  looks  very  much  as  it  Dekker,  having  in  mind  the  perform- 
ances and  customs  of  Blackfriars,  were  mentally  transferring 
these  to  the  public  theatres  lor  the  purpose  of  heightening  the 
absurdities  of  the  gallants  under  imagined  ridiculous  conditions 
and  circumstances,  or  such  as  existed  but  rarely. 

Nothing  in  the  way  of  very  conclusive  evidence  can  be  made 
out  of  these  satiric  references  in  Middleton  and  Dekker. 

It  may  be  that  occasionally  a  gallant  intruded  his  presence  on 
the  public  stage.  But  on  the  whole  it  seems  unlikely  that  the 
public  theatres  accommodated  their  conditions  to  the  Blackfriars 
fad.  It  would  be  gratifying  to  find  proof  that  they  did.  It  would 
show  even  more  powerful  influences  of  the  Queen's  Children  than 
I  have  been  able  to  trace.  But  the  evidence  at  hand  is  not  highly 
convincing.  One  can  only  admit  the  possibility,  and  hope  for 
determinative  declaration  from  contemporaries. 

Nevertheless  the  Blackfriars  fashion  spread  widely.  Not  only 
were  the  two  private  theatres,  the  Cockpit1  and  Salisbury  Court,2 
built  on  the  general  model  of  the  Blackfriars,3  but  the  practice  of 
sitting  on  the  stage  was  also  imitated.  There  are  numerous  allu- 
sions to  the  custom  as  practiced  in  both.4  In  all  three  the  gentle- 
men's rooms  were  not  at  right  and  left  of  the  stage  as  in  the  pub- 
lic theatres,  but  in  the  region  where  our  modern  private  boxes 
are,6 — "which,"  to  quote  Dekker,  "is  now  but  the  Stages  Sub- 
may  (with  small  cost)  purchase  the  (253)  gulling  the  "Ragga-muflms" 
deere  acquaintance  of  the  boyes :  at  the  public  theatre,  then  without 
haue  a  good  stoole  for  sixpence :  at  break  of  thought  recalls  in  the  next 
any  time  know  what  particular  part  paragraph  the  quarrel  with  Jonson 
any  of  the  infants  present."— Idem,  in  1601  (u.  s„  133'),  and  in  the 
249.  following  paragraph    (2f>4)   goes  on 

This  of  course  is  on  the  Black-  with  this  advice  concerning  the 
friars  Boys.  Yet  eight  lines  beyond,  Blackfriars  Boys: — "mewe  at  pas- 
in  the  same  paragraph,  without  sionate  speeches,  blare  at  merrie. 
break  of  thought,  the  mind  of  the  finde  fault  with  the  musicke,  whew 
author  is  mi  the  situation  as  if  it  at  the  childrens  Action,  whistle  at 
were  in  the  public  theatre,  thus: —      the   songs"   &C 

"Neither    are    you    to   be   hunted  ' Supra,  8\ 

from  thence,  though  the  Scarcrows  'Built    1629.      See   documents,    «. 

in   the    yard    hoot   at   you,  hisse   at      5 
you,    spit   at    you,    yea,   throw   durt  *  Supra,  36*,  39*. 

euen  in  your  teeth    &c.  'It  is   without   the   Bcope  of  the 

Again    (252)    he   has   the   gallant       present   work   to  assemble  all   these, 
take   a    pair    of   oars    for    the    play-       But  see  for  example  supra.  43*,   IStf 
house    ($.   <•..   to  the    Bankside),  lias       and  infra,   143s 
him  on  the  stage  playing  carets  and  'Supra,  "■<'•'.  46,  50-61,  plats. 


142 


CHILDREN  OF  THE  CHAPEL  AT  BLACKFRIARS 


urbs."1     The  gallants  occupied  the  right  and  left  wings  of  the 
stage  itself,  built  and  reserved  especially  for  such  use.2 

There  is  no  reason  to  suppose  with  Gifford  that  the  audience 
on  the  Blackfriars  stage  of  the  Chapel  Boys  was  indecent;3  nor 
with  Collier  that  their  presence  there  annoyed  the  actors  and  dis- 
turbed the  play/  On  the  contrary  they  seem  to  have  been  gen- 
teel and  ultra-fashionable,  and  the  stage  was  specially  adapted, 
fitted,  and  reserved  for  their  presence.  But  in  the  course  of  years 
the  custom  was,  presumably,  abused  and  undue  liberties  were 
taken.  Even  in  1616  Jonson  in  the  Prologue  to  The  Devil  is  an 
Ass5  indicates  the  fad  was  pushed  to  such  popularity  among  the 
grandees  that  at  a  new  play  at  Blackfriars  the  actors  were  left 
barely  elbow-room  for  their  performance.     Sometime  prior  to 


1  Supra,  43,  1402. 

2 Supra,  46,  50-51   (plat),  147. 

3  Works  of  Ben  Jonson  (ed.  Gif- 
ford-Cunningham,  1816),  I,  1461. 
Gifford  seems  to  have  taken  Dek- 
ker's  satire  on  conditions  in  any 
theatre  of  a  later  time  (or  of  no 
time)  as  applicable  at  any  time  or 
all  times  to  this  particular  theatre. 

•j[.  P.  Collier,  op.  cit.,2  Ill,  144. 
Collier  seems  to  be  transferring  to 
English  territory  conditions  exist- 
ing half  a  century  to  a  century  and 
a  half  later  on  the  French  stage,  or 
basing  conclusions  upon  conditions 
of  1616  and  later,  u.  i.,  142-431. 

Prologue. 

The  Devil  is  an  Ass  :  that  is  to- 
day, 

The  name  of  what  you  are  met  for, 
a  new  play. 

Yet  grandees,  would  you  were  not 
come  to  grace 

Our  matter,  with  allowing  us  no 
place. 

Though  you  presume  Satan,  a  sub- 
tle thing, 

And  may  have  heard  he's  worn  in 
a  thumb-ring; 

Do  not  on  these  presumptions  force 
us  act 

In  compass  of  a  cheese-trencher. 
This   tract 

Will  ne'er  admit  our  Vice,  because 
of  yours. 


Anon,    who    worse    than    you,    the 

fault  endures 
That   yourselves   make?    when   you 

will  thrust  and  spurn 
And  knock  us  on  the  elbows;  and 

bid,   turn ; 
As  if,  when  we  had  spoke,  we  must 

be  gone, 
Or,  till  we  speak,  must  all  run  in, 

to  one, 
Like  the  young  adders,  at  the  old 

ones  mouth ! 
Would   we   could   stand   due  north, 

or  had  no  south, 
If    that    offend ;    or    were    Muscovy 

glass, 
That    you    might    look    our    scenes 

through  as  they  pass. 
We   know    not   how   to   affect   you. 

If  you'll   come 
To  see  new  plays,  pray  you  afford 

us  room, 
And   shew   this   but  the   same   face 

you  have  done 
Your    dear    delight,    The    Devil    of 

Edmonston. 
Or,   if   for   want  of   room   it   must 

miscarry, 
'Twill  be  but  justice  that  your  cen- 
sure tarry, 
Till  you  give  some :  and  when  six 

times  you  have  seen't 
If  this  play  do  not  like,  the  Devil 

is  in't." 
— The  Works  of  Ben  Jonson  (with 
a  Memoir  by  Gifford,  1838),  343. 


SITTING  ON  THE  STAGE 


143 


Sept.  14,  1639,  Charles  I  had  put  an  end  to  the  custom  of  sitting 
on  the  stage.1 

The  influence  did  not  end  here.  It  spread  even  to  France  and 
Germany.  Once  imported  to  spectacular  Paris,  the  custom  was 
more  tenacious  than  in  London.  For  nearly  a  century  and  a  half 
it  shaped  the  structure  of  the  stage  and  influenced  the  form  of 
both  drama  and  acting.  There  can  be  no  great  doubt  that  its  im- 
portation dates  from  the  period  of  high  favor  in  London.  Yet 
D'Aubignac-  in  1657  fails  to  mention  it.  However  in  the  same 
year  or  the  year  after,  Tallemant  des  Reaux  speaks  of  its  abuse 
as  an  intolerable  nuisance,  with  no  suggestion  that  it  is  a  novelty.3 
And  only  three  or  four  years  later,  Moliere  satirizes  it  in  the  open- 
ing speech  of  Les  Facheux  (  1661)  as  a  mature  practice  having 
features  of  refinement  for  the  refined,  but  abused  by  the  parasitic 
bore  and  the  creature  of  pretentious  worth  and  ostentatious  gen- 
tility, to  the  annoyance  of  the  actors  and  the  displeasure  of  the 
better  sort  of  spectators.4     During  the  next  hundred  years  it  is 


'See  "Instructions  touching  Sales- 
bcry  CoTi  Playhouse,  14  Septem., 
1639,"  in  The  Shakespeare  Society's 
Papers  (  1S49),  IV,  99-100,  commu- 
nicated by  Peter  Cunningham  from 
the  papers  of  Mr.  Richard  Heaton, 
manager  of  the  Salisbury  Court 
theatre,  in  which  Heaton  makes 
memorandum,  in  certain  articles 
with  the  players  : — 

"And  one  dayes  p'ffitt  wholly  to 
themselves    every    yeare    in    consid- 
eration of  their  want  of  stooles  on 
the  stage,  w'h  were  taken  away  by 
\I"   comaiul  " 

' Francois    Hedelin    (Abbe   d'Au- 
bignac),    I. a   Practique   du    Theatre 
57). 

*"I1  y  a,  a  cette  heure,  tine  in- 
commoditd  epouvantable  a  la  Co- 
mldie,  c'esl  que  les  deux  cotes  du 
theatre  sont  tout  pleins  de  jeunes 
pens  as^m  sur  des  chaises  de  paille; 
cela  vienl  de  ce  qu'ils  ne  veulent 
pas  aller  au  parterre,  quoiqu'il  y  ait 
souvent  des  soldats  a  la  porn-,  el 
cjiu-  li  1  lea  laquais  ne  por 

tent  [tin-  di  '■•  1  es  logea  sont  fort 
chores,  el  1!  y  faut  songer  de  bonne 
heure:    pour   un   ecu,   00    pour   un 


demi-louis,  on  est  sur  le  theatre; 
mais  cela  gate  tout,  et  il  ne  faut 
quelquefois  qu'un  insolent  pour  tout 
troubler." — Tallemant  des  Reaux, 
Mondory,  on  Yhistoire  des  prin- 
cipaux  comidiens  froncois:  Les 
Historiettes.  VII,   178. 

*JSraste. — Sous    quel     astre,    bon 

Dieu,  faut-il  que  je  sois  in.'-. 
Pour  etre  de  Facheux  toujours  as- 

sassine ! 
II  semble  que  partout  le  sort  me  les 

adr< 
Et    j'en    vois    chaque    jour    quelque 

nouvelle  espece ; 
Mais  il  n'est  Hen  d'egal  au  Facheux 

d'aujotird'hui ; 
J'ai  cm  n'etre  jamais  d6bara 

lui, 
Et  cent   fois  j'ai   maudit  cette   inno- 

cente  envie 
Qui   m'a   pris  a    dine  de   voir  la  co- 

medie. 

Ou    pensanl    m'egayer,    j'ai    mis&- 

rablement 
Trouve  de  mes  pechea  le  rude  cha- 

timont. 
II  faut  que  je  te  Easae  an  real  d<* 

1'afTaire. 


144 


CHILDREN  OF  THE  CHAPEL  AT  BLACKFRIARS 


again     and     again     subject     of    adverse     comment.      In     1731 
Voltaire  condemns  it  as  a  cause  of  dramatic  and  histrionic  de- 


Car  je  m'en   sens   encor   tout  emu 

de  colere. 
J'etois    sur    le    theatre,    en    humeur 

d'ecouter 
La  piece,  qu'a  plusieurs  j'avois  oul 

vanter ; 
Les   acteurs   commencoient,    chacun 

pretoit  silence, 
Lorsque   d'un   air   bruyant   et  plein 

d'extravagance, 
Un  homme  a  grands  canons  est  en- 

tre  brusquement, 
En     criant :     "Hola-ho !     un     siege 

promptement  I" 
Et  de  son  grand  fracas  surprenant 

l'assemblee, 
Dans  le  plus  bel  endroit  a  la  piece 

troublee. 
He !    mon    Dieu !    nos    Francois,    si 

souvent  redresses, 
Ne  prendront-ils  jamais  un  air   de 

gens  senses, 
Ai-je  dit,  et  faut-il  sur  nos  defauts 

extremes 
Qu'en     theatre     public     nous     nous 

jouions  nous-memes, 
Et  confirmions  ainsi  par  des  eclats 

de  fous 
Ce  que  chez  nos  voisins  on  dit  par- 
tout  de  nous? 
Tandis    que    la-dessus    je    haussois 

les  epaules, 
Les    acteurs    ont    voulu    continuer 

leurs  roles ; 
Mais  l'homme  pour  s'asseoir  a  fait 

nouveau  fracas, 
Et    traversant    encor    le    theatre    a 

grands  pas, 
Bien  que  dans  les  cotes  il  put  etre  a 

son  aise, 
Au  milieu  du  devant  il  a  plante  sa 

chaise, 
Et  de  son  large  dos   morguant  les 

spectateurs, 
Aux  trois  quarts  du  parterre  a  cache 

les  acteurs. 
Un  bruit  s'est  eleve,  dont  un  autre 

eut  eu  honte ; 
Mais  lui,  ferme  et  constant,  n'en  a 

fait  aucun  compte, 
Et  se  seroit  tenu  comme  il  s'etoit 

pose, 
Si,  pour  mon  infortune,  il  ne  m'eiit 


avise. 
"Ha!  Marquis,  m'a-t-il  dit,  prenant 

pres  de  mois  place, 
Comment  te  portes-tu?    Souffre  que 

je  t'embrasse." 
Au    visage    sur    l'heure    un    rouge 

m'est  monte 
Que  Ton  me  vit  connu  d'un  pareil 

evente. 
Je  l'etois  peu  pourtant ;  mais  on  en 

voit  paroitre, 
De  ces  gens  qui  de  rien  veulent  fort 

vous   connoitre, 
Dont    il    faut    au    salut   les    baisers 

essuyer, 
Et  qui   sont  familiers  jusqu'a  vous 

tutoyer. 
II  m'a  fait  a  l'abord  cent  questions 

frivoles, 
Plus   haut   que   les   acteurs   elevant 

ses  paroles. 
Chacun  le  maudissoit;  et  moi,  pour 

l'arreter : 
"Je     serois,     ai-je     dit,     bien     aise 

d'ecouter. 
— Tu  n'as  point  vu  ceci,  Marquis? 

Ah !  Dieu  me  damne, 
Je  le  trouve  assez  droles,  et  je  n'y 

suis  pas  ane ; 
Je  sais  par  quelles  lois  un  ouvrage 

est  parfait, 
Et  Corneille   me  vient  lire  tout  ce 

qu'il   fait." 
La-dessus  de  la  piece  il  m'a  fait  un 

sommaire, 
Scene  a  scene  averti  de  ce  qui  s'al- 

loit   faire ; 
Et  jusques  a  des  vers  qu'il  en  savoit 

par  coeur, 
II   me   les   recitoit  tout  haut  avant 

l'acteur. 
J'avois    beau    m'en    defendre,    il    a 

pousse  sa  chance, 
Et  s'est  devers  la  fin  leve  longtemps 

d'avance ; 
Car  les  gens  du  bel  air,  pour  agir 

galamment, 
Se    gardent   bien    surtout    d'ouir   le 

denouement. 
Je  rendois  grace  au  Ciel,  et  croyois 

de   justice 
Qu'avec    la    comedie    eut    fini    mou 

supplice; 


SITTING  ON  THE  STAGE 


145 


cay.1  Later,  in  the  introduction  to  S emir  amis  (1748),  he  com- 
plains more  sharply  of  the  abuses  of  the  custom  as  noxious  and 
pestilential  in  both  dramatic  composition  and  stage  representation.1 


Mais,   coninic    si    e'en    eiit   ete   trop 

bon    marche, 
Sur  nouveaux   frais  mon  homme  a 

moi  s'est  attache, 
M'a   conte    ses   exploits,   ses   vertus 

non  communes, 
Parle  de  ses  chevaux,  de  ses  bonnes 

fortunes, 
Et  de  ce  qu'  a  la  cour  il  avoit  de 

favour, 
Disant   qu'a    m'y    servir    il    s'offroit 

de  grand  cceur. 
Je    le    remerciois    doucement    de    la 

Minutant  a  tous  coups  quelque  re- 

traite  honnete ; 
Mais  lui,  pour  le  quitter  me  voyant 

ebranle* : 
"Sortons,  ce   m'a-t-il   dit,  le  monde 

est   ecoule;" 
Et  sortis  de  ce  lieu,  me  la  donnant 

plus  seche: 
"Marquis,  allons  au  Cours  faire  voir 

ma  galeche.  .  ." 
— Les  Facheux,  Comedie  (1661),  I, 
i,  1-76.      CEuvrcs  de  Moliere  (nou- 
velle  edition,  par   M.   Eugene   Des- 
pois,   1876),  III,  35-39. 

For  a  convenient  prose  transla- 
tion see  Henri  van  Laun,  The  Dra- 
matic Works  of  Moliere  rendered 
into  English  (The  Bores),  I,  309- 
11. 

"'The  place  in  which  plays  are 
acted,  and  the  abuses  which  are 
crept  into  it,  are  also  a  cause  of 
that  dryness  which  may  be  objected 
to  some  of  our  dramatic  pieces. 
The  benches  set  on  the  stage  for 
the  spectators,  contract  the  space 
of  it,  and  make  it  almost  impos- 
Sl'ble  to  represent  the  whole  action. 
To  this  defect  't  is  owing,  that  the 
and  decorations  which  are 
so  strongly  recommended  by  the 
antienl  Idom    suit    with    the 

play.  Above  all,  it  hinders  the  act- 
ors from  passiiiL-  out  <>f  one  room 
into  another  before  the  spectators, 
as  was  the  judicious  practice  of 
the    Greeks    and    Romans,    in    order 


to  preserve  at  one  and  the  same 
time  the  unity  of  place  and  proba- 
bility. 

I  low  could  we  attempt,  for  in- 
stance, to  bring  Pompey's  ghost,  or 
the  genius  of  Brutus,  on  our  stage, 
among  so  many  young  people, 
who  view  the  most  serious  inci- 
dents purely  that  it  may  give  them 
an  opportunity  of  saying  some  smart 
thing." — Voltaire,  A  Discourse  on 
Tragedy,  with  Reflections  on  the 
English  and  French  Drama.  Pub- 
lished with  An  Essay  upon  the  Civil 
Wars  of  France  (London,  1731), 
7-8.  Written  by  Voltaire  in  both 
English  and  French  as  an  introduc- 
tion to  his  Henriade  and  Brutus, 
and    addressed    to    Mylord    Boling- 

I  > r<  ike. 

2Un  de  plus  grands  obstacles  qui 
s'opposent,  sur  notre  theatre,  a  toute 
action  grande  et  nathetique,  est  la 
foule  des  spectateurs  confondus  sur 
la  scene  avec  les  acteurs:  cette  in- 
decence  se  fit  sentir  particuliere- 
ment  a  la  premiere  representation 
de  ScHiiramis.  La  principale  ac- 
trice  de  Londres,  qui  etait  presente 
a  ce  spectacle,  ne  revenait  point  de 
son  etonnement ;  elle  ne  pouvait 
concevoir  comment  il  y  avait  des 
hommes  assez  ennemis  de  leur^  plai- 
sirs  pour  gater  ainsi  le  spectacle 
sans  en  jouir.  Cet  abus  a  ete  cr- 
rige  dans  la  suite  aux  representa- 
tions de  SSmiramis,  et  il  pourrait 
aisement  ctre  supprime  pour  jamais. 

II  ne  faut  pas  s'y  meprendrc:  un 
inconvenient  tel  que  celui-la  seul  a 
suffi  pour  priver  la  France  de  bean- 
coup  de  chefs-d'oeuvre,  qu'on  aurait 
<ans  doute  hasardes  si  on  avait  eu 
un  theatre  libre,  propre  pour  Tac- 
tion, et  tel  qu'il  est  die-  toutes  les 
autrcs   nations   de   1'Kurope. 

Mais  ce  grand  def.uit  n'esl  ]>as 
assurement  le  seul  <|iii  doive  etre 
corrigeV  Te  ne  puis  assez  m'ltonner 
ni  me  plaindre  du  pen  de  soin  qu'on 
a  en   France  de  rendre  les   tb 


146 


CHILDREN  OF  THE  CHAPEL  AT  BLACKFRIARS 


Through  Voltaire's  efforts  it  was  suppressed  in  the  acting  of  Se- 
miramis  after  the  first  night. 

The  custom  was  eleven  years  later  (1759)  abolished  from  the 
French  stage  through  the  payment  of  a  considerable  sum  of 
money  by  the  Count  de  Lauraguais  to  the  actors  on  the  condition 
of  not  allowing  thereafter  any  spectators  on  the  stage.1 

The  custom  was  never  adopted  on  the  stage  of  the  serious  Ger- 
man. Its  only  known  appearance  in  Germany  is  on  a  French 
stage  in  French  plays  by  a  French  company  at  Frankfurt,  the 
home  of  Goethe,  while  the  French  troops  of  the  Seven  Years  War 
were  quartered  there.  In  the  same  year  in  which  the  custom  was 
abolished  from  the  Parisian  stage,  1759,  the  youthful  and  pre- 
cocious Goethe,  then  ten  years  old,  saw  and  even  shared  in  its 
practices  in  this  French  theatre  at  Frankfurt.2 


dignes  des  excellents  ouvrages 
qu'on  y  represente  et  de  la  nation 
qui  en  fait  ses  delices.  Cinna,  Atha- 
lie,  meritaient  d'etre  represented  ail- 
leurs  que  dans  un  jeu  de  paume,  au 
bout  duquel  on  a  eleve  quelques 
decorations  du  plus  mauvais  gout, 
et  dans  lequel  les  spectateurs  sont 
places,  contre  tout  ordre  et  contre 
toute  raison,  les  uns  debout  sur  le 
theatre  meme,  les  autres  debout 
dans  ce  qu'on  apelle  parterre,  ou 
ils  sont  genes  et  presses  indecem- 
ment,  et  ou  ils  se  precipitent 
quelquefois  en  tumulte  les  uns  sur 
les  autres,  comme  dans  une  sedition 
populaire.  On  represente  au  fond 
du  Nord  nos  ouvrages  dramatiques 
dans  des  salles  mille  fois  plus  mag- 
nifiques,  mieux  entendues,  et  avec 
beaucoup  plus  de  decence. — Voltaire, 
Dissertation  sur  la  Tragedie  An- 
cicnne  et  Modernc  (seconde  partie). 
Published  as  an  introduction  to 
Semiramis,  tragedie    (1748). 

^'Enfin,  en  1759,  M.  le  comte  de 
Lauraguais,  aujourd'hui  due  de 
Brancas,  l'a  fait  cesser  en  donnant 
aux  comediens  une  somme  consi- 
derable pour  les  indemniser  de  la 
perte  que  devait  leur  faire  eprouver 
la  suppression  des  banquettes  de 
l'avant-scene"  (Auger,  1819)  — 
Quoted  in  Les  Fachcux,  Oeuvres 
de    Moliere    (nouvelle    edition,    par 


M.o Eugene  Despois,  1876),  III,  36lfl. 
2  Was  mir  meine  Besuche  auf 
dem  Theater  sehr  erleichterte,  war, 
dasz  mir  mein  Freibillett,  als  aus 
den  Handen  des  Schultheiszen,  den 
Weg  zu  alien  Platzen  eroffnete,  und 
also  audi  zu  den  Sitzen  im  Pro- 
scenium. Dieses  war  nach  fran- 
zosischer  Art  sehr  tief  und  an  bei- 
den  Seiten  mit  Sitzen  eingefaszt, 
die,  durch  eine  niedrige  Barriere  be- 
schrankt,  sich  in  mehrern  Reihen 
hinter  einande  aufbauten  und  zwar 
dergestalt,  dasz  die  ersten  Sitze  nur 
wenig  iiber  die  Biihne  erhoben  war- 
en.  Das  Ganze  gait  fur  einen  be- 
sondern  Ehrenplatz ;  nur  Offiziere 
bedienten  sich  gewohnlich  desselben, 
obgleich  die  Nahe  der  Schauspieler, 
ich  will  nicht  sagen  jede  Illusion, 
sondern  gewissermaszen  jedes  Ge- 
fallen  aufhob.  Sogar  jenen  Ge- 
brauch  oder  Miszbrauch,  iiber  den 
sich  Voltaire  so  sehr  beschwert, 
habe  ich  noch  erlebt  und  mit  augen 
gesehen.  Wenn  bei  sehr  vollem 
Hause  und  etwa  zur  Zeit  von  Durch- 
marschen  angesehene  Offiziere  nach 
jenem  Ehrenplatz  strebten,  der  aber 
gewohnlich  schon  besetzt  war,  so 
stellte  man  noch  einige  Reihen 
Banke  und  Stuhle  ins  Proscenium 
auf  die  Biihne  selbst,  und  es  blieb 
den  Helden  und  Heldinnen  nichts 
iibrig    als    in    einem    sehr    maszigen 


SITTING  ON   THE  STAGE  147 

This  is  the  Last  contemporary  testimony. 

The  adaptation  of  the  foreign  stage  to  the  Blackfriars  custom, 
as  shown  m  the  testimony  of  Tallemant  des  Reaux,  Motiere,  Vol- 
taire, and  Goethe,  is  corroborative  evidence  of  the  stage-structure 
at  Blackfriars  where  it  originated.  In  all  cases  the  seats  were  at 
right  and  left  of  the  actors.  In  the  earliest  form,  as  we  know 
from  the  evidence  at  Blackfriars  and  from  Dekker's  The  Guls 
Home-Book,  the  wings  and  the  scats  there  were  on  a  level  with 
the  stage  of  action.  Bui  in  a  century  and  a  half  the  structural 
form  had  evolved  from  that  unvarying  level  into  the  latest  phase 

ported  by  Goethe,  with  the  elevated  seats  at  the  side-  p] 
on  an  amphitheatrical  slope  down  to  the  low  dividing  rail  about 
the  stage  proper,  but  with  the  highest   privileges  still  reserved 
within  the  narrowed  borders  of  the  act.>r-  themseh 

I  have  given  thus  much  -pace  to  this  custom  of  sitting  on  the 
Stage  because  it  show-  the  tendency  and  potency  of  influences 
begun  at  Blackfriars  under  Queen  Elizabeth's  patronage. 

Raumc     zwischen     den     Uniformen  Werke,  XVII,  lVahrheit  und  Dicht- 

und  Orden  ihre  Geheimnisse  zu  ent-  ung   (ed   Prof.   Dr.   II.  Duntzer    in 

hullen.     Ich  habe  die  "ilypermnes-  J.   Kurschner's   Deutsche 

tra     selbst   unter  solchen  Uinstand-  Littcmiur,  Rand  9s),  Teil   I    Drittcs 

en      auflFiihren      sehen.  —  Goethe's  Buch.   llfl 


CHAPTER  XII 

THE  QUEEN'S  PURPOSES.— OPPOSING  THEATRICAL  AND 
OFFICIAL  CONDITIONS,  1597-1603 

With  1597  began  that  attempt  at  state  control  of  the  theatres 
which  later  under  James  I  put  on  the  novel  cloak  of  exclusive 
royal  patronage,1  and  ultimately  degenerated  into  the  principle 
of  monopoly  first  granted  by  Charles  II  to  Killigrew  and  Dave- 
nant,2  whence  it  passed  on  down  even  into  the  reign  of  Victoria. 

From  1597  to  the  close  of  Elizabeth's  reign  more  official  orders 
were  directed  against  the  public  theatres  than  in  all  the  rest  of 
the  years  together  from  1576  to  the  Puritan  suppressions  begin- 
ning with  the  civil  war  in  1642.3 

No  order  of  permanent  suppression  emanated  from  the  Queen 
prior  to  1597.  There  had  been,  however,  numerous  orders  touch- 
ing regulation  of  the  theatres  for  various  causes,  especially  dur- 
ing periods  of  infectious  disease.4  From  1597  to  the  close  of  Eliz- 
abeth's reign,  five  orders  of  suppression  were  issued  by  the  Privy 
Council  in  her  name,  besides  unimportant  temporary  regulations. 

The  cause  for  this  brief  strenuousness  has  been  taken  for 
granted  to  be  Puritanism.5    No  one  has  ever  given  a  basis  for  the 

xSee  complete  work,  vol.  I.  1821),   III,  414-57.     All   are  avail- 

2Idem.  able   in   the   published  Acts   of   the 

3 The   facts   in   this   sentence  and  Privy  Council  (u.  s.). 

in  the  following  paragraphs  in  this  5J.  P.  Collier,  History  of  English 

relation  are  taken  from  the  original  Dramatic  Poetry  (18311,  18792),  305, 

Registers  of  the  Privy  Council,  at  329-30,    is,    so    far   as   I   know,   the 

Whitehall   Palace.     Only  a  part  of  first  to  make  the  assumption   as   a 

these,  up  to  1602,  are  as  yet  avail-  matter  of  course.     Since  then  it  has 

able  in  the  government  publications,  been  accepted  as  fact  by  Halliwell- 

Acts  of  the  Privy  Council.  Phillips,   op.   cit.,   I,   367ff. ;    Sidney 

*  The    orders    touching   the    The-  Lee,  A  Life  of  William  Shakespeare 

atre   and    Curtain   are   collected   by  (5th  ed.,  1905),  219-20;  Karl  Mant- 

J.  O.  Halliwell-Phillips,  Outlines  of  zius,  A   History  of   Theatrical  Art 

the   Life    of   Shakespeare    (9th    ed.  (translated  into  English  by  Louise 

1890),    I,    346-75,    passim.      Numer-  von  Cossel,  1904),  III,  8,   19,  69ff. ; 

ous  others  are  in  George  Chalmers,  and     nearly     every    one    who    has 

Farther    Account    of    the    English  touched  the  field.     Recently  the  as- 

Stage,  published  in  Malone's  Shake-  sumption  has  been   used  as   an  in- 

speare      Variorum      (ed.      Boswell,  tegral  part  of  a  dissertation  for  the 


THE  QUEEN'S  PURPOS.  utf 

theory.  Presumably  it  arises  out  of  attacks  of  Puritan  pam- 
phleteers on  the  theatres,  and  the  general  knowledge  that  Puri- 
tanism was  a  strong  and  growing  element  which  steadily  more 
and  more  had  to  be  reckoned  with  in  matters  of  church  and  state. 
Puritanism  was  always  ascetically  opposed  to  games,  plays,  and 
amusements  as  ungodly.  As  early  as  1569,  for  example,  a  Puri- 
tanic pamphlet  sharply  attacks  Elizabeth  for  using  the  Children 
of  the  Chapel  in  theatrical  performances.1  The  years  from  that 
time  on  are  strewn  with  lost  waifs  of  opposition  to  theatres.2 

But  are  these  conditions  an  adequate  explanation  of  the  official 
manoeuvers  in  theatrical  regulation  from  1597  to  1603?  The 
Queen  was  not  Puritan,  nor  were  her  privy  councillors,  nor  were 
the  several  Lord  Mayors,  nor  the  city  council  of  London.  Yet 
these  are  the  sources  of  the  actions.  There  is  no  documentary 
evidence  of  any  other. 

We  find,  for  example,  the  Lord  Mayor  and  City  Council  on 
certain  occasions  asking  for  general  orders  of  suppression,  and 
the  Privy  Council  in  the  Queen's  name  giving,  not  the  general 
orders  solicited,  but  instead  very  definite  and  specific  orders 
against  only  the  public  theatres,''  which  in  turn  the  same  city 
officials  who  made  the  solicitations  refuse  to  carry  out. 

This  is  not  Puritanism.  Puritanism  would  have  been  quick 
to  embrace  the  opportunity  to  enforce  the  slightest  restriction 
against  any   theatre. 

Again,  a  little  over  two  years  after  the  most  drastic  of  all  the 
orders  of  the  Privy  Council  under  Elizabeth,  we  find  that  same 
body  as  constituted  under  James  not  merely  revoking  its  own  acts 
of  1600  and  1 601,  but  even  commanding  the  City  and  other  offi- 
cials to  allow  the  very  conditions  they  had  in  the  closing  years  of 
Elizabeth  so  vigorously  attempted  to  restrict.4 

doctorate   by    E.    N.    S.    Thompson,  '  The     Children     of     the     Chapel 

The  Controversy  between  the  Puri-  Strict  iind  ll'hipt   (  L660).     & 

tans   and   the   Stage    (Yale  Studies  pra,  4\ 

in   English,  cd     \    S.   Cook,    ioo.t,  'See  a  collection  of  these  touch- 

XX),  particularly  on  pages    L23  87.  inp  the  Theatre  and  Curtain  t 

F.  C  Fleay,  A  Chronicle  History  of  in    I.  O.   Halliwell-Phillips.  op,  cit., 

the  l.nnd.m  Stage   (1890),   161,  saw  I.  368-71,                       See  also 

the   error   of   this   common    assnmp-  S.    Thompson,   op.   cit.,  40  sqq. 

don,   and    recognized   a   conflict   of  ••    the    orders   of    1597,    n>oo, 

City    and    royal    authority,    without  1601,   inft                                     I  81. 

however  reaching  the  cause.  'See  the  order  of  0  April,  1004. 


150  CHILDREN  OF  THE  CHAPEL  AT  BLACKFRIARS 

Instead  of  having  any  relation  to  Puritanism,  these  instances 
rather  exemplify  the  action  of  officials  in  the  one  case  in  carrying 
out  the  will  of  Elizabeth  and  the  very  different  will  of  James  in 
the  other. 

I  suppose  Elizabeth  in  affairs  generally  felt  the  need  of  taking 
Puritanism  into  account.1  This  she  generally  did  by  steering 
around  it.  Incidental  traces  of  such  seem  evident  in  the  quiet 
nature  of  her  permissions  for  establishing  and  conducting  Black- 
friars,2  and  again  in  the  disposition  of  the  consequent  Clifton 
affair.3 

But  the  causes  of  the  Queen's  official  attitude  toward  the  the- 
atres lay  not  in  Puritanism,  but  in  her  own  purposes. 

Elizabeth,  always  a  patron  and  lover  of  the  drama,4  had  some 
definite  notion  of  what  the  theatre  should  be.  Not  the  complete- 
ness nor  the  incompleteness  with  which  her  notion  was  executed 
by  officials,  but  her  purpose  therein  is  the  point  of  main  concern 
in  this  consideration. 

Upon  the  numerous  public  theatres,  particularly  those  of  sec- 
ond-rate sort,  the  Queen  looked  with  no  more  favor  than  did  the 
City.5    The  Lord  Mayor  and  aldermen  attempted  reformation  by 

In     E.     Malone,    An    Inquiry     &c.  See  further  complete   work,   vol. 

(1797),   215;   J.    O.    Halliwell-Phil-  I.     Et  infra,  152-53,  156,  160-611. 

lips,  op.  cit.,  I,  310.     Original  MS.  'Some  of  the  complaints  against 

in  Dulwich  College.     See  also  G.  F.  the    theatres     originated    with    the 

Warner,    Catalogue    of    the    Manu-  church.     Which  however  was  a  long 

scripts  and  Muniments  of  Alleyn's  ways     from     Puritanism.     But     the 

College   of   God's   Gift   at   Duhuich  church  of  St.  Saviors  in  Southwark, 

(1881),   26-27,   showing   J.    P.   Col-  the    district    in    which    most   of   the 

lier's  forgeries  in  this  document  as  public    theatres   then  were,   in    1600 

printed   in   his  New  Facts  Regard-  accepted  them  as  fixed  institutions, 

ing   Shakespeare    (1835).  and   sought   to   use   them   as   means 

In    this    act    of    1604    the    Privy  of    church    support    through    tithes. 

Council    specifically    commands    the  — See    extracts    from    Parish-regis- 

Lord  Mayor  and  the  Magistrates  to  ters,  in  Chalmers,  Farther  Account, 

allow  the  Globe,  Fortune,  and  Cur-  &c,  in  op.  cit.,  Ill,  452.     Cf.  sup.,  4. 

tain   unrestrained   liberty,   expressly  'Supra,   70-71. 

mentioning    and    revoking    the    re-  3 Supra,  81-83 ;  infra,  159. 

strictive  and   suppressive  orders  of  4Even     in    her    school-days     she 

1600-1601    thus  : — "without   any   lett  translated  a  part  of  one  of  Seneca's 

or    interruption    in    respect    of    any  dramas    into    blank-verse, — the    first 

former  Letters  or  Prohibition  here-  example     of     blank-verse     in     the 

tofore  written  by  us  to  your  Lord-  English, 

ship,"  &c.  5"  .  .  .   forasmuch  as  it  is  man- 

Blackfriars     is     here     not     men-  ifestly       knowen       and       graunted 

tioned,  because  it  was  not  included  that    the    multitude    of    the    saide 

in  the  famous  orders  of  1600-1601.  houses  and  the  mys-government  of 


THE  QUEEN'S  PURPOSES 


151 


driving  the  theatres  out  The  Queen  attempted  reformation  by 
fostering  meritorious  exclusiveness.1  Her  declared  purpose  was 
to  reform  abuses  and  increase  the  usefulness  of  the  stag 

In  carrying  out  her  notion  the  Queen  established  a  restrictive 
law  on  strolling  players.  She  established  the  Blackfriars,  which, 
whether  so  intended  or  not,  became  at  once  the  envy  and  the 
model  of  the  time.  She  fostered  the  privacy  of  Paul's.  She  at- 
tempted to  suppress  the  less  worthy  of  the  public  theatres,  and 
to  put  the  Globe  and  Fortune  on  the  basis  of  exclusiveness  their 
companies  merited. 

Had  Elizabeth's  notions  met  with  full  support  from  even  those 
who  most  pretended  to  want  reform,  the  inferior  theatres  would 
have  been  suppressed,  and  the  necessarily  high  prices  would  have 
shut  out  the  troublesome  rabble  from  the  Globe  and  Fortune  as 
completely  as  from  the  1  'lack friars.  This  would  at  once  have 
corrected  the  evils  complained  of  by  the  City,  and  at  the  same 
time  therein  have  disarmed  the  City  of  the  pretentions  it  was 
using  merely  as  a  cover  for  a  very  different  contention.3 

How  the  City  authorities  and  the  public  theatres  felt  about  it 
we  shall  - 


them  hath  bin  and  is  dayly  occa- 
sion of  the  ydle,  ryotous  and  dis- 
solute living  of  great  nomhers  of 
people,  that,  leavinge  all  such  hon- 
est and  painefull  course  of  life  as 
they  should  followe,  doc  mecte  and 
ible  there,  and  of  many  par- 
ticular abuses  and  disorders  that  doe 
thereupon  ensue; 

'[This  is  shown  by  her  acts  next 
noticed,  and  by  her  declaration  in 
the  words  next  following  the  quo- 
tation supracit.:]  "and  yet,  never- 
theless, it  i>  considered  that  the  use 
am!  exercise  "i  such  playes,  not  be- 
inge  evill  in  ytself,  may  with  a  good 
order  and  moderacion  be  suffered 
in  a  well-governed  state,  and  thai 
her  Majestie,  beinge  pleased  at  som 
tymes   to   take   delight   and    recrea 

tion  in  tlie  sighl  and  hearing-  of 
them,  SOme  order  i-  titt  to  he  taken 
for  tlie  allowance  and  maynteiiaiince 

;i  persons  as  are  thought  meet- 

cst  in  that  kinde  to  veahlc  her  Maj- 
estic    recreation    and    delighte,    and 


consequently    of    the    houses     that 
must   serve  for  publike  playinge  to 
them  in  exercise. 
'[This  is  best  shown  hy  her  acts. 

But  the  declaration  is  in  the  con- 
cluding next  word-  of  the  preamble 
quoted  above  in  notes  i  <*/  supra:] 

"To    the    endc.    therefore,    that    both 

the  greate  abuses  of  playes  and 
playinge  houses    may    he    redi 

ami  set  the  a  fore-aide  use  and  mod- 
eration of  them  retayned,  the  1 
ami  the  reste  of  her  Majesties  Priv- 

ie  Counsel!,  with  one  and  full  con- 
sent, have  ordered"  &c  Preamble 
to  the  order  of  the  Lord'-  of  the 
Privy  Council  for  the  restrainte  of 
the  {moderate  use  and  Componye  of 
Playehowses  ami  Players,  in  Reg- 
isters  of  the  Privy  Council,  White- 
hall. 22  June,  it  m  Halli- 
well  PI  -  ci*.,  I.  307  B,  and 
George  Chalmers,  Farther  A 
in  op.  ci*.,  111. 
'Infra,  Li 


152  CHILDREN  OF  THE  CHAPEL  AT  BLACKFRIARS 

The  beginning  of  the  Queen's  reformatory  purpose  shows  itself 
during  Burbage's  remodeling  of  the  Blackfriars  Priory-house 
into  a  theatre,  in  the  latter  part  of  1596.  Whether  she  intended 
then  to  have  the  Children  of  the  Chapel  established  there,  or 
whether  Burbage  purposed  to  use  it  in  place  of  the  Theatre,  the 
lease  of  which  was  just  expiring,  does  not  affect  the  present  con- 
sideration. The  new  establishment  was  at  least  to  be  in  a  most 
aristocratic  neighborhood,  and  its  exclusiveness  and  privacy  were 
assured.  Hence,  when  certain  petitioners  in  November,  1596,1 
appealed  to  her  through  the  Privy  Council  to  suppress  Burbage's 
project,  the  request  was  ignored.2 

The  next  appearance  of  definite  plans  was  in  the  wholesome 
lopping  off  of  the  nuisance  of  unlicensed  strolling  players  by  the 
sharply  restrictive  law  of  1597  reducing  and  confining  the  num- 
ber of  companies  to  those  under  noble  patronage.3 

Act  now  succeeds  act  along  the  line  of  one  clear  purpose. 
Whatever  may  have  been  the  original  plan  or  expectation  in  build- 
ing the  Blackfriars  theatre,  the  Commission  for  taking  up  children 
issued  to  Nathaniel  Gyles,4  the  operations  of  which  we  have  seen,6 
settles  the  question  as  to  what  determination  the  Queen  had 
reached  by  July  3,  1597,  the  date  of  the  Privy  Seal.6  It  is  not 
likely  that  Gyles  lost  any  time  in  collecting  a  company  of  chil- 
dren, nor  that  the  City  authorities  and  the  public  theatres  were 
unaware  of  the  new  state  of  affairs. 

July  28,  1597,  within  a  month  after  the  Privy  Seal,  and  two 
weeks  after  the  Patent,7  doubtless  while  Gyles  and  Evans  were 
collecting  and  organizing  the  new  children-actors,  the  Lord  Mayor 
asked  the  Privy  Council  for  orders  to  suppress  plays  "as  well  at 
the  Theatre,  Curten,  and  Bankside,  as  in  all  other  places  in  and 
about  the  Citie."8 

1  Supra,  175.  hand    and    seale    of    arms    of    such 

2  Supra,  182,  53,  153-542,  1611.  baron    or    personage,    shall    be    ad- 
3The     statute     of     39     Elizabeth      judged  and  deemed  rogues  and  vag- 

(1597)    declares   that    "all    common  abonds." 

players     of     interludes     wandering  *Supra,  60\ 

abroad,  other  than  players  of  inter-  5  Supra,  70-72,  et  sqq. 

ludes    belonging    to    anie    baron    of  "Supra,  601. 

this   realme,  or  anie  other  honour-  7  Supra,  ibid. 

able    personage    of    greater    degree,  "See    letter    in    J.    O.    Halliwell- 

to  be  authorized  to  play  under  the  Phillips,  op.  cit.,  I,  356-57. 


THE  QUEEN'S  PURPOSES  153 

The  designation  "Theatre,  Curten,  and  liankside"  included  all 
the  public  theatres  then  in  existence.1  The  only  "other"  known 
theatre  "in  or  about  the  Citie"  in  1597  was  the  private  establish- 
ment of  Blackiriar.->.-  The  Privy  Council  so  understood  it,  and 
immediately,  on  the  same  day,  sent  a  reply  "in  her  Majesty's 
name"  expressing  "her  Majesties  pleasure  and  commandment" 
for  drastic  measures  against  the  "common  playhouses,"  thereby 
excluding  the  private  theatre  of  Blackfriars,  the  suppression  of 
which  seems  t<>  have  been  the  desired  object  of  the  request.  The 
Theatre  and  Curtain  are  specifically  named.  They  shall  be  dis- 
mantled and  made  unfit  for  further  use  as  places  for  acting.  All 
other  "common  playhouses"'  are  \>>  Ik-  restrained  until  Allhallow- 
tide.4 

In  response  to  this  order  the  Lord  Mayor  and  City  Council  did 
nothing,  although  their  request  had  exhibited  great  anxiety  for 
power  to  act. 

This  is  the  beginning  of  what  seems  to  be  a  political  game  of 
chess,  with  the  theatres  as  pieces. 

The  City  had  long  before  driven  the  theatres  out  of  its  pre- 
cincts. Still  the  City  authorities,  always  jealous  of  power  and 
craving  more,  wished  to  control  them.  Still  more,  they  wished 
to  establish  their  long-contested  claim  to  civic  control  of  the  pre- 
cincts of  Blackfriars.  The  establishment  of  a  theatre  within  the 
liberties  of  Blackfriars  gave  them  renewed  eagerness.  Permis- 
sion granted  to  control  all  theatres,  and  therefore  this   theatre, 

'The   Theatre   and   Curtain    were  plete   work.   vol.    II.    under   Plays.) 
on    the    north     (Middlesex    county)  It     is     prohable     that     Paul'* 
side  of  the   Thames,   and   north   of  opened  as  a  result  of  the  establish- 
the  City  "in  the  fields."     The  Swan,  ment   of   Blackfriars. 
Rose,  Bear  Garden,  and  Newington  These  and  all  Other  later  private 
Butts  were  on  the  Bankside   (south  theatres    were   on    the    north    (  Mid- 
or  Surry  county  side).     The  other  dlesex     county)     side.— Whitefriara 
Bankside  theatres  were  built  at  later  (<</.    — ?)  ;    Cockpit    (ca.   — ?),    re- 
dates,   the   first   Globe,    LS99;    Mope.  built  as  Phoenix   1  1617)   and  known 
1613;    new    Globe     (after    the    fire")  oftener  as  Drury  Lane  theatre:  Sal- 
L613    11       Of   the    later   public   thea-  isbury  Court    (11 
rres   only    the    Fortune    (1600),    in          'I.  e.,  Swan,  Rose,  Bear  Garden, 
Golding-lane,  and  the  Red  Bull,  St.  and  Newington  Butts,  on  the  Bank- 
John'*  street,  were  in  Middlesex  CO.  side. 

'It  is   not   known   whether   Paul's  the  order  of  the  Pi 

was  reopened  by  L697  or  not    The  cil.  July  88,  1697,  published  in  Acts 

date  of  reopening  is  usually  taken  of  the  Privy  C  uncil,  tS9J  fed  1    R. 

to   be    L600.      But    I    find   evidence   of       Dasent,     IS  in    J 

playing  then-   in    1698.     (See  com-      O.  Eialliwell  Phillips,  op.  eit.,  I 


154  CHILDREN  OF  THE  CHAPEL  AT  BLACKFRIARS 

would  be  a  tacit  admission  of  the  City's  right  to  full  control  in 
Blackfriars  in  other  matters  hitherto  denied  by  the  Crown.  They 
had  long  claimed  that  precinct  for  their  own.1  Although  they 
failed  to  establish  their  claim  they  kept  tenaciously  insisting  upon 
it.2 

The  attitude  of  the  City  authorities  during  these  five  and  a  half 
following  years  seems  to  be  this.  They  insist  upon  their  claim  of 
control  of  precinct  and  theatre.  If  the  Queen  denies  it,  and  even 
establishes  and  maintains  a  theatre  there  contrary  to  their  wishes, 
they  will  not  in  turn  aid  her  to  regulate  the  abuses  in  the  public 
theatres,  even  after  they  have  asked  and  received  authority  to  act, 
and  even  though  to  act  accordingly  would  be  to  their  own  civic 
advantage  and  welfare.  They  will  use  the  one  as  a  lever  against 
the  other.3 

The  Queen  on  the  other  hand  goes  ahead  with  her  purposes. 
She  would  gladly  control  the  abuses  in  the  public  theatres,  cut 
off  the  unworthy,  and  raise  the  rest  in  moral  tone  to  at  least  the 
rank  of  select  exclusiveness.  So  she  issues  orders  accordingly. 
If  however  the  community  most  immediately  concerned  does  not 
execute  the  orders  even  after  asking  for  them,  she  can  hardly 

xSee  in  Guildhall  Record  Office  lier,  op.  cit.,  I,  398-99,  where  is 
Letter-Book  Z,  fol.  23-28.  This  cited  a  document  found  at  Bridge- 
lengthy  historical  document,  dated  water  House  on  this  effort  in  which 
27  January,  1579,  has  never  been  the  case  of  1579  (u.  s.,  1541)  is 
printed.  It  is  a  vigorous  brief  with  used  as  a  basis.  This  is  the  only 
long  arguments  and  citations  on  the  genuine  document  in  the  folio  of 
part  of  the  City  to  prove  both  six  in  which  it  is  found.  See  ex- 
Blackfriars  and  Whitefriars  parts  of  posure  in  N.  E.  S.  A.  Hamilton, 
the  City  of  London,  and  not  inde-  An  Inquiry  into  the  Genuineness 
pendent  liberties  responsible  only  to  of  the  MS.  Corrections  in  Mr.  J.  P. 
the  Crown.  It  gives  much  of  the  Collier's  Annotated  Shakespeare, 
history  of  both  precincts,  and  is  also  folio,  1632;  and  of  certain  Shake- 
an  admirable  document  in  the  his-  spearian  documents  likewise  pub- 
tory  of  the  development  of  munic-  lished  by  Mr.  Collier  (1860),  109. 
ipal  powers.  The  attempt  at  pos-  In  1615-17  the  City  had  gained 
session  however  failed.  See  further  sufficient  ground  to  suppress  Rossi- 
infra,  1542.  ter's   attempt  to   build   another   the- 

For  claims  on  the  side  of  the  atre  in  Blackfriars  precincts  (cf. 
Blackfriars  inhabitants  in  the  long  complete  work,  vol.  I),  and,  em- 
controversy,  see  documents  cited  su-  boldened  thereby,  tried  in  1618-19 
pra,  211.  to   suppress   the   Blackfriars   theatre 

2 Failing    of    success    with    Eliza-  of  present  interest  (u.  i.,  1611).     See 

beth,  they  persisted  in  their  efforts  Order    of    Suppression,     1618-[19], 

under  James  I.     In  1608  they  made  u.  s.,  175-18. 
a  particularly  vigorous   effort,  with  3Infra,  1611. 

failure  as  the  result. — See  J.  P.  Col- 


THE  QUEEN'S  PURPOSES  105 

undertake  forcible  measures.  But  she  can  do  much  by  carrying 
out  her  own  royal  purpose  in  giving  countenance  and  support  to 
a  theatre  for  the  better  sort  of  patrons  and  recognizing  only  such 
of  the  public  theatre  companies  at  Court  as  have  chief  merit.  And 
her  high  example  and  exclusive  recognition  work  results  despite 
the  ( lity's  attitude. 

Within  ten  days  after  the  above  request  and  order  of  July  28, 
1597,  Nash's  .satirical  Isle  of  Dogs  was  acted  at  the  Rose.  Tem- 
porary restraint  of  that  theatre,  not  by  the  City  officials  to  whom 
the  power  was  just  -ranted  but  by  the  Queen's  Court,  immediately 
followed.  Idle  restraining  order  was  recalled  August  27.  and  the 
Rose  was  allowed  to  go  on.1 

Within  the  next  six  months  we  find  that  definite  shape  to  the 
Queen's  plans,  as  outlined  above,  which  she  pursued  to  the  last. 

Februarj  [9,1597-  [8], Queen  Elizabeth  caused  her  Privy  Coun- 
cil to  send  letters  to  the  Master  of  the  Revels  and  Justices  of  Mid- 
dlesex and  Surrey,  in  which  we  learn  the  Chamberlain's  company, 
to  which  Shakespeare  belonged,  and  the  Admiral's  players  under 
the  I  Icnslow  e-Alleyn  regime,  have  been  specially  licensed  and 
retained  for  her  service.2  All  others  are  to  be  suppressed.  So 
far  as  she  was  concerned,  no  other  public  companies  should  have 
recognition  of  her  patronage  or  license.  None  did.  These  are 
the  only  men's  companies  that  appear  thereafter  for  five  years  at 
Court,''  with  the  exception  of  one  single  play  by  Derby's  men. 
Shrove  Tuesday,  February  14,  1600.4 

I'.etween  28  December,  1598,"  and  about  August.  1500.  the  Bur- 
bages,  having  torn  down  the  Theatre,  used  its  materials  in  build- 


1  See  records  in  Henslowe's  Diary  Pub.,     1842),    Introduction,    xxxii- 

(ed.    Collier.    Shakesp.    Soc.    Pub.,  xxxiv. 

1845),                    258.     Also  in  J.  P.  4For  record  of  paymenl  see  Acts 

Collier,  op.  cit .  I.  295-97.  of    the    Privy    Council.     T590-1600 

"See    letter    from    original    docu-  (ed    J.    R.     Dasent,    New    Sei 

limit  111  Acts  of  the  Prxvy  Council,  XXX.    B9.      Also    in    •               Chal- 

159T-98  (ed   I    k.  Dasent,  New  Se-  mers,  op.  cit..  III.  450 

ries,   L904),   XXVIII,  327.      Vlso  in  F.  G.  Fleay,  A  Chronicle  II 

ier,  Op.  Ctt.,  I.  of   the    London    Stage    (1890),    L22, 

*  For  official  records  of  the  Court-  -ays  the  date  of  playing  was   Febr. 

payments   to   these   two   companies,  5;    p.    133,    Febr.    7.      But    by    the 

extracts    from    the  Baroni    Easter  table   it    is    F< 

unts    of    the    Revels   at    Court  1600 

(ed.  P.  Cunningham,  Shakesp.  [ Supra, 


156  CHILDREN  OF  THE  CHAPEL  AT  BLACKFRIARS 

ing  the  Globe  on  the  Bankside.  January  8,  i599-[i6oo]x  the 
Fortune  was  begun  in  Golding-lane  on  the  opposite  side  of  the 
City  to  the  north.  During  the  course  of  its  construction,  com- 
plaints against  the  theatres  were  renewed.  We  are  not  told  by 
contemporary  records  whether  the  complainants  were  City  offi- 
cials or  not.  The  common  modern  assumption  that  they  were 
Puritans  is  gratuitous.2 

June  22,  i6oo,  the  Privy  Council  in  response  to  these  complaints 
issued  orders  for  carrying  out  her  Majesty's  plans3  as  outlined 
in  the  order  of  19  Feb.,  1597- [8].  Only  the  two  companies  there 
specified  and  their  respective  new  houses,  the  Globe  and  Fortune, 
are  to  be  permitted.  But  the  idea  of  exclusiveness  was  extended 
in  a  way  that  displeased  even  these  two  favored  companies.  They 
were  to  be  permitted  to  act  but  twice  a  week  instead  of  daily  as 
hitherto. 

The  Lord  Mayor  and  other  authorities  made  no  more  effort  to 
enforce  this  order  than  the  one  of  July  28,  1597. 

I  must  here  call  attention  to  an  important  item.  Of  all  the 
orders  of  the  Privy  Council  from  1576  to  1597,4  not  one  uses  the 
word  "common"  or  "public"  in  application  to  the  theatres.  The 
apparently  hasty  and  choleric  order  of  July  28,  1597,°  is  the  first 
to  employ  either  word  thus.  Within  a  space  of  eighteen  lines, 
"common  playhouse"  is  used  twice,  "publique  place"  twice,  and 
general  descriptions  of  public  theatres  coupled  with  the  names 
"Curtain"  and  "Theatre"  twice. 

In  the  order  of  1600  and  the  two  letters  accompanying  it,6 
"common  stage-plaies"  is  used  three  times,  and  "publique"  is  ap- 
plied twice. 

The  first  official  use,  antedating  the  Privy  Council's  use,  of 
"common"  thus,  so  far  as  I  have  found,  is  in  the  law  of  1597 
against  strolling  players.7 

This  distinction  of  "common"  or  "public"  as  a  manifest  differ- 

1  Supra,  29*.  these  dates  see  the  government  pub- 

2 See  supra,   1485-50.  lications,  Acts  of  the  Privy  Coun- 

3  See    quotations    supra,    1505-512  cil.     Those    touching    the    Theatre 

and    the    document    in    extenso    in  and   Curtain  are  collected  in  J.  O. 

Acts    of   the   Privy    Council,    7500-  Halliwell-Phillips,  op.  cit.,  I,  346-75, 

1600  (ed.  J.  R.  Dasent,  New  Series),  passim. 

XXX,   395-98,   411.      Also   in   J.   O.  *Supra,    152-53. 

Halliwell-Phillips,  op.  cit.,  I,  307-8.  ''Supra,  1563. 

*  For    the    whole    series    covering  ''Supra,   152. 


THE  QUEEN'S  PURPOSES  157 

entiation  from  the  Blackfriars  was  quickly  picked  up  by  poets 
and  patrons  and  was  felt  by  the  public  theatres  to  have  a  touch 
of  stigma  in  it.  Shakespeare  but  represents  the  feeling  of  his 
fellows  when  he  expresses  his  disrelish  of  the  new  distinction  of 
"common  stages,"  both  officially  and  popularly  applied.1 

The  attitude  of  the  Queen  towards  public  theatres  and  her  pat- 
ronage of  Blackfriars  cannot  bat  have  had  large  influence  in  ac- 
complishing what  her  orders  in  the  hands  of  the  City  authorities 
failed  to  accomplish.  It  at  least  was  the  means  of  depriving  the 
public  theatres  of  their  best  patronage  and  materially  reducing 
their  income,  as  their  representatives  charge.  They  could  not  as 
a  result  be  a  very  friendly  element. 

It  was  with  a  full  knowledge  of  these  conditions  that  the  Essex 
conspirators  sought  to  enlist  Shakespeare's  company  in  their 
cause-  early  in  1G01.  And  doubtless  these  conditions,  more  than 
the  bribe  of  40  s.,  wrought  persuasively  with  those  actors  of  the 
Globe  who  were  besought  to  present  "the  deposyng  and  kyllyng 
of  Kyng  Rychard  the  Second"  on  the  following  day,  Saturday, 
February  y,  1601.  Although  wholly  unaware  of  the  Essex  con- 
spiracy, they  were  fully  aware  of  Elizabeth's  special  antipathy  to 
the  theme  involved,3  and  no  amount  of  palliation  can  cover  their 
culpability  to  that  extent. 

Although  no  legal  proceedings  were  instituted  against  the  Globe 
players,  and  within  three  weeks,  on  Shrove  Tuesday,  Feb.  24, 
they  played,  by  previous  arrangement,  before  the  Queen,  yet  never 
after  did  good  feeling  exist  on  either  side. 

The  items  of  the  two  following  paragraphs  in  the  chronology 
of  events  are  of  only  incidental  concern. 

The  Queen  had  the  Paul's  Boys  at  Court  January  1,  1601,  and 
the  Children  of  the  Chapel  on  February  6.  and  again  on  Shrove 
Sunday.  February  22.*     Her  orders  of  March  11  following,  for 

'See  further,  infra,  176*,  165*.  added  document-  on  the  famous  fa- 

'For  documents  in  this  affair  see.  tal     insurrection    of    the     following 

at   the    Public    Record    Office,   State  day,    Sunday.    Feb.    S,    1601,    i-    verv 

Pafx-rs.   Domestic   Series,   Eluobeth,  full. 

CCl  XXVIII.  N                      Calendar  'See  J.  O.   Ilalliwell-Phillip-.  Op. 

of    the    same     Cl.'.OS-lGOl)     575-78;  dt..   II, 

J.  O.  Halliwell-PhilHpSjj Of.  eit.,  II,  complete     work.      vol.      II. 

•      Mr.   Ilalliwell-Phillip's  dis-  flays    at                       \Uo     ef.    supra, 

cussion  of  the  case  (1.  191-99)  with  11:.',  L811 


158  CHILDREN  OF  THE  CHAPEL  AT  BLACKFRIARS 

closing  all  theatres  during  Lent,  with  Blackfriars  and  Paul's 
specifically  named,1  has  but  one  special  significance.  The  Earl 
of  Essex  was  to  be  executed, — his  execution  occurred  March 
25, — and  the  political  state  was  unquiet.  Hence  it  was  well  to 
close  all  places  of  public  gathering,  particularly  those  where  in- 
fluential sympathizers  of  the  popular  Essex  might  assemble.  This 
unimportant  temporary  order  of  mere  expediency, — whether 
merely  for  Lent  or  on  account  of  Essex, — has  nothing  to  do  with 
the  Queen's  attitude  and  purposes  toward  the  favored  or  the  less 
favored  theatres.2 

May  13  (signed  May  10), 3  1601,  the  Privy  Council  issued  a 
restraining  order  against  the  company  playing  at  the  Curtain  on 
account  of  satirizing  persons  of  prominence,  but  without  attempt- 
ing to  enforce  against  it  the  order  of  1600,  by  which  the  Curtain 
should  nearly  a  year  ago  have  been  permanently  suppressed.  The 
present  order  does  not  touch  the  theatre,  but  merely  deals  with 
the  company  in  this  single  offense.  It  is  of  present  interest 
mainly  because  in  the  summer  of  the  same  year  Jonson  at  the 
Blackfriars  and  Dekker  at  the  Globe  were  waging  their  con- 
troversy of  bitter  personal  satire  without  interference  by  the 
government.4 

*A  part  of  this  order  was  printed  give   the   date   as    May   10.     I   find 

by   George    Chalmers,    op.   cit.,   Ill,  May  13  in  the  original  Registers  of 

435.     I  give  here  my  transcript  of  the  Privy  Council,  Elizabeth    (Dec. 

it  from  the  original   records   in  the  7,  1600— Jan.  2,  1602),  XVII,  193,  at 

Privy  Council  Office  : —  Whitehall.     May  13  is  also  given  in 

Wednesdaye    the    xith   of    March  the  recent  official  publication  of  the 

1600-M]  document    in    Acts    of    the    Privy 

A  lettre  to  the  L.  Mayor  requir-  Council   1600-1601   (ed.   J.  R.   Das- 

ing  him  not  to  faile  to  take  order  ent,  New  Series,  1906),  XXXI,  341, 

playes  wthin  the  Cyttie  and  the  lib-  346-     But  see  ltem  {tdem,  340)  from 

erties,  especyally  at  Powles  and  in  the    original    records    that    it    was 

the  Blackfriers,  may  be  suppressed  signed  the   10th  and  bore  date  the 

during  this  time  of  Lent.— Registers  13th-     Is  this  significant? 

of     the    Privy     Council,    Elizabeth  In    this    quarrel    Blackfriars    is 

(Dec.  7,  1600— Jan.  2,  1602),  XVII,  regarded  as  being,  through  Jonson, 

}19  the  aggressor.     Shakespeare  later  in 

2One  might  be  led  to  suppose  so  the  same  year,  in  Hamlet,  not  only 

from   the   bare   statement    in    F.    G.  administers   censure    for   an   unwise 

Fleay     op.    cit.,    160,    and    Hermann  partisanship    m    allowing   the    Chil- 

Maas,     Die     Kindertruppen     (Diss.  dren    to    be    made    instruments    of 

Gottingen,   1901),  12.  quarrel,    but    charges    more    sharply 

3 In  "quoting  this  document,  J.   P.  that   "the  nation  holds  it  no  sin  to 

Collier,   op.    cit.,   I,   305,   and   J.    O.  tarre    them    to    controversy.       See 

Halliwell-Phillips,    op.    cit.,    I,    368,  further,  infra,  171,  174  Fi,  180  -81. 


THE  QUEEN'S  PURPOSES  159 

One  of  the  important  events  showing  Elizabeth's  attitude  is 
the  Chiton  case  of  Dec  15,  l6oi.  As  already  pointed  out.1  this 
looks  like  a  shrewd  political  move  tinged  with  Puritanism.  Clif- 
ton's persona]  grievance, — a  most  minor  affair  at  best,  which  was 
within  tin-  .-pace  of  a  day  fully  redressed.- — is  a  mere  exciis.    for 

action.     Personal  grievances  do  not  wait  a  year  and  two  days  Eor 

justice,  and  in  this  case  waited  no  more  than  a  day.  These  were 
troublous  times  politically.  Besides,  both  City  and  public  theatre- 
were  opposed  to  Blackfriars;  and  whether  Clifton  was  or  was 
not  a  willing  instrument  in  furthering  plans  of  others,  the  sus- 
picion of  it  is  not  wanting. 

Clifton's  whole  complaint  is  a  covert  attack  upon  the  Queen's 
Commission  to  Gyles  in  its  present  permitted  use  for  establishing 
and  maintaining  the  Blackfriars.  His  waiting  a  year  gives  em- 
phasis to  this  clear  fact.  Clifton  knew,  as  everybody  else  in  Lon- 
don knew,  that  this  theatre  was  conducted  under  the  Queen's 
patronage.  It  was  upon  that  knowledge  that  action  was  taken. 
His  complaint  has  no  point  or  purpose  but  the  suppression  of  the 
theatre,  or  the  embarrassment  of  the  Queen  in  her  plans. 

Elizabeth's  course  in  the  case  was  as  judicial  as  just  and  con- 
sistent. She  took  ample  notice  of  the  minor  matter  of  personal 
injury  by  causing  Evans  in  the  Court  of  Star  Chamber  to  Ik-  de- 
prived of  the  official  position  she  had  given  him.  It  could  never 
have  been  within  her  thought  to  do  violence  to  gentlemen  of  the 
realm  by  forcible  impressment  of  their  children,  nor  to  have  the 
children  abused  or  misused  who  were  to  serve  her.  She  had  not 
wished  it,  nor  could  she  or  her  Court  countenance  it.  Thus  she 
redressed  the  grievance  upon  the  exact  basis  of  its  pretenses,  and 
at  the  same  time  consistently  with  a  just  sovereignty.  The  chief 
burden  of  complaint  however,  made  as  if  subsidiary  to  the  per- 
sonal  injury,  was  treated  on  the  lines  of  that  pretense,  and  con- 
sequently disregarded.3 

Vs  a  result,  the  Blackfriars  went  on.  as  we  have  seen,  without 

interruption,  and  on  the  same  basis  as  hitherto.* 

During  the  Christmas  season  of  ifioi  f  j]  the  customary  Court- 
entertainments  were  for  the  firsl  time  in  many  years  omitted.     Xo 

*Sup 

*Supra,  87-88,  et  passim. 


160  CHILDREN  OF  THE  CHAPEL  AT  BLACKFRIARS 

plays  were  presented  there.1  If  the  cause  of  this  did  not  lie  in 
the  Queen's  displeasure  with  the  public  theatres,  the  suggestion 
of  it  is  at  least  difficult  to  repress.  The  Richard  II  affair  in  be- 
half of  the  Essex  conspirators  was  less  than  a  year  in  the  past,2 
and  the  Clifton  attempt  was  but  recently  made. 

The  Queen  however  found  other  amusement,  and  amply 
showed  by  her  presence  at  Blackfriars  December  29,  as  already 
noticed,3  her  clear  purpose.  This  particular  event,  coming  just 
a  fortnight  after  the  Clifton  complaint,  and  publicly  marking  its 
failure  to  suppress  Blackfriars,  seems  to  have  had  some  signifi- 
cance in  official  London.  The  City  may  not  have  had  an  interest 
in  Clifton's  attempt  to  suppress  Blackfriars.  But  if  he  had  suc- 
ceeded, the  City  as  represented  by  the  Lord  Mayor  would  at  least 
have  been  spared  the  Janian  deification  of  features  induced  by 
the  strain  of  moral  solicitude  in  its  next  acts. 

On  the  next  day  after  the  above  event  of  the  Queen's  attend- 
ance at  Blackfriars,  or  at  latest  on  the  day  after  the  next,  the 
Lord  Mayor  renewed  the  City's  complaint,  indicating  that  the 
number  of  playhouses  and  plays  had  greatly  increased,  and  ask- 
ing for  power  to  regulate  them  !4  This  looks  like  a  most  strange 
request  in  the  light  of  the  fact  that  this  very  power  had  been 
specifically  granted,  with  the  command  also  to  exercise  it,  in  the 
order  of  June  22,  1600.  It  seemed  thus  also  to  the  Privy  Coun- 
cil, who  in  their  reply  of  the  same  or  following  day,  December 
31,  1 601,  very  courteously  called  attention  to  the  inconsistency, 
and  issued  a  sharp  command  to  the  City  and  justices  to  enforce, 
not  some  new  order,  but  the  former  order  of  a  year  and  a  half 

ago.5 

*I  do  not  know  the  authority  of  this  season,  according  to  the  Ex- 
Mr.  J.  O.  Halliwell-Phillips,  op.  cit.,  tracts  from  the  Accounts  of  the 
I,  201,  for  saying  that  Shakespeare's  Revels  at  Court  (ed.  P.  Cunning- 
company  at  this  season  presented  ham,  5.  6".  Pub.  1842),  Introduction, 
four    plays   before    her    Majesty    at  xxvii-xxxiv. 

Whitehall,  one  of  which  was  prob-  F.  G.  Fleay,  op.  cit.,  123,  likewise 
ably   Twelfth  Night.     He  does  not  was  unable  to  find  any  Court-plays 
get  this  from  the  Registers  of  the  for  1601-[2]. 
Privy   Council,   for   the   officials    at           2 Supra,  157. 
the  Office  of  the  Privy  Council  in-           s Supra,  95-97. 
form  me  that  all  records  from  Jan-           "The  only  knowledge  of  the  date 
uary  2,   1602,   to   1613  were  burned  and  contents  of  this  request  is  con- 
in  the  fire  of  Jan.  12,  1618.     Also,  tained    in    the    Privy    Council's    an- 
the  Office  Book  of  the  Treasurer  of  swer  (».  i.,  1605). 
the    Chamber    shows    no    plays    for          5See  the  two  documents,  one  to 


THE  QUEEN'S  PURPOSES 


161 


The  City's  solicitation  for  power  when  they  already  had  it  is 
clearly  a  pretense  inspired  by  some  new  hope  of  success  in  its  old 
contention.  The  1'rivy  Council's  surprise  that  during  the  past 
year  and  a  half  nothing  had  been  done  to  carry  out  the  Queen's 
order  is  simply  a  counter  pretense ;  for  the  theatres  were  a  large 
element  in  the  social  life  of  London,  and  their  doings  were 
known  to  no  one  better  than  to  the  Queen  and  her  Court.  Both 
actions  arc  simply  secure  moves  on  the  chess-board. 

The  City  authorities  finding  no  change  of  front  and  getting 
not  the  concession  they  craved  concerning  Blackfriars  but  a  rep- 
etition of  the  definite  and  specific  order  of  1600  for  restrictions 
of  only  the  public  theatres,  quietly  let  the  order  die,  just  as  in  the 
former  cases.1  There  is  no  evidence  that  they  made  the  slightest 
effort  at  restraint. - 


the  City  and  one  to  the  county  mag- 
istrates, both  dated  Dec.  31,  1601, 
in  J.  O.  Halliwell-Phillips,  op.  cit., 
I,  308-309. 

1  That  it  was  the  Queen's  private 
establishment  in  liberties  within  the 
City  yet  outside  its  control  that 
irked  the  municipal  authorities  is 
proved  over  and  over  by  circum- 
stances, as  presented  in  the  preced- 
ing pages.  A  clinching  proof  is 
their  attitude  in  1618-[19].  Em- 
boldened by  their  success  in  secur- 
ing the  suppression  of  R'ossiter's 
theatre  in  the  Blackfriars  precincts, 
1615-17,  they  set  about  to  find  a 
way  to  carry  out  their  long-cher- 
ished desire  to  suppress  the  present 
Blackfriars  theatre,  and  thereby  gain 
a  conceded  right  of  control  looking 
toward  the  full  establishment  of 
their  long  contention. 

The  City  now  (1618-fl9])  de- 
cided that  the  Blackfriars  was  a 
"public"  theatre  and  therefore  fell 
under  the  late  Queen's  orders  of 
1600  1601 1  So  they  issued  a  com- 
mand  suppressing  it  in  accordance 
witli  those  long-dead  orders!! — 
Eighteen  years  after!!  Nothing 
could  have  h<cn  more  absurd,  for 
in  the  first  place  the  Queen's  orders 
in  question  had  never  been  enforced 
against  any  theatre  even  at  the  time 


of  issue,  and  in  the  second  place 
the  Privy  Council  under  James  in 
1604,  April  '.)  ( u.  s..  1  I'.i'  %0),  had 
revoked  those  dead  orders.  More- 
over, the  Queen  had  in  the  1600- 
1601  orders  exempted  the  Black- 
friars  by  astutely  specifying  "public" 
or  "common"  theatres,  thus  pre- 
venting the  City's  desired  operation 
against  her  private  theatre. 

The  dog-in-the-manger  figure  of 
the  City  Council  from  1597  to  1603, 
and  their  sudden  awakening  eigh- 
teen years  after  to  enforce  those  old 
orders, — even  after  long  revoked, — 
against  the  very  theatre  they 
shielded,  but  against  no  other,  is  as 
comical  as  it  is  convincing  and  final 
proof  of  the  conditions  as  I  have 
analyzed  them. 

See  further  on  earlier  phases  of 
the  City's  contention  and  the  order 
of  1618-[19],  supra,  211,  :<■'•.  1 

"With  the  assistance  of  Dr. 
Sharp.  Superintendent.  I  have 
searched  the  City  archives  at  the 
Guildhall  in  vain  for  evidence  of 
action  in  any  one  of  the  several 
foregoing  orders.  If  the  City  had 
acted  in  any  single  instance,  there 
would  certainly  lie  some  sort  of 
trace  left,  as  in  the  suppression  of 
Rossiter's  theatre  in  the  same  pre- 
cints    in    1615-17;    in    the    effort    to 


162 


CHILDREN  OF  THE  CHAPEL  AT  BLACKFRIARS 


This  was  the  last  move  on  either  side.1 

Nevertheless,  I  am  willing  to  take  the  evidence  of  Shakespeare 
and  Jonson  that  the  public  theatres  were  steadily  losing  ground. 
The  cause  is  rightly  ascribed  in  Hamlet,  as  discussed  in  a  later 
chapter.2 

During  this  period  of  five  and  a  half  years,  the  public  theatres 
enjoyed  the  anomalous  distinction  of  the  City's  tacit  favor  and 
the  Sovereign's  explicit  disfavor.  There  is  no  other  such  period 
in  their  history.  It  amounts  to  an  alliance  of  municipal  and  the- 
atrical enemies  in  a  common  cause  against  nationally  enforced 
progress  in  theatrical  conditions. 


suppress  the  Blackfriars  in  1618- 
[19]  ;  and  in  other  cases  touching 
on  theatres,  games,  &c. 

This  is  negative  but  not  less  sure 
proof  of  the  City's  inaction  in  ex- 
ecuting the  orders  they  themselves 
asked  for.  Positive  proof  is  the 
well-known  fact  that  various  com- 
panies were  acting  unrestrained  by 
the  City  in  the  various  public  the- 
atres not  only  in  1602,  but  through- 
out this  whole  period  of  1597-1603. 

xThe  Privy  Council's  order  of 
March  19,  1602-[3],  which  I  have 
not  hitherto  seen  in  print,  might  in 
disconnected  relation  be  taken  to  be 
another  move  along  similar  lines. 
But  it  has  reference  to  another  mat- 
ter:— 

"[1602-[3],  March]  19.  Letters 
to  the  Lord  Mayor  and  Justices  of 
Middlesex  and  Surrey,  for  the  re- 
straint of  Stage  plaies  till  other  di- 


rections be  given." — From  MS. 
Camden  Society  Transcript  of  Privy 
Council  Records,  now  preserved  at 
Privy  Council  Office.  This  tran- 
script of  extracts  or  abstracts  of  the 
Registers  of  the  Privv  Council  de- 
stroyed by  fire  (u.  s.,  1601)  is  taken 
from  Brit.  Mus.  Add.  MS.,  11402. 

As  appears  from  a  letter  in  the 
same  MS.  sent  by  the  Council  the 
next  day  to  "Sondrie  Earles  and 
Barons"  to  "take  all  possible  care 
wee  can  for  the  preventing  of  dis- 
orders and  for  the  continuance  and 
preservation  of  tranquilitie  and 
peace  in  all  parts  of  the  Realme," 
&c,  this  order  closing  the  theatres 
temporarily  was  made  because  of 
the  fear  of  an  uprising  in  case  of 
the  Queen's  expected  death.  Five 
days  after  the  order,  24  March, 
1602-[3],  the  Queen  passed  away. 

2  Infra,  173-82. 


CHAPTER  XIII 

RELATIONS  OF  BLACKFRIARS  TO  OTHER  Till  AIRES,  POETS, 

AND  PLAYERS 

The  I'.lackfriars  Boys,  led  by  the  young  Roscii  I'avy,  Field, 
Underwood,  and  Ostler,  with  their  novel  entertainments  of  mu- 
sic, singing,  masque,  and  drama  under  special  favoring  influences 
and  select  auditorial  privileges,  found  that  following  that  made 
theirs  recognized  as  the  foremost  theatre  of  London.  They  be- 
came as  a  result  the  objects  of  imitation  and  envy. 

This  much  we  have  evidence  of.  But  the  detailed  relations 
cannot  now  be  fully  worked  out,  even  so  far  as  the  scattered  re- 
mains of  evidence  are  available.  It  will  never  be  possible  to  get 
at  the  full  particulars,  for  the  probable  evidences  have  perished. 
I  mean  contemporary  plays  containing  satires  and  local  hits. 
Some  of  this  sort  we  know  to  have  been  suppressed.  We  know 
also  that  it  was  then  as  now  the  custom  to  introduce  local  drives 
not  connected  with  the  play.  The  new  evidence  offered  later  in 
connection  with  the  Byron  tragedies  by  Chapman  would  be  suffi- 
cient in  itself  to  prove  this.1  But  the  field  cannot  here  be  entered 
upon. 

Henslowe's  Diary  shows  that  approximately  two-thirds  of  the 
plays  written  by  the  numerous  poets  employed  by  him.  for  prac- 
tically every  public  theatre  but  the  Globe,  have  perished.  Nearly 
three  times  as  man)  dramatists  wrote  for  Henslowe  a--  for  I'.lack- 
friars, Globe,  and   Paul's  combined.2     The  number  of  dramas  is 

'See  complete  work,  vol.   I.  Percy's   plays   were   acted   here. 

"The  known  dramatists  for  1597-       (d)   Fortuiir,    Curtain.     Rostf    and 

.    in    chronology    of    their    first  possihly     Swan,     Bear    Garden, 

appearance   at   their    respective   the-  and       NewtHgton      Butts,      for 

atres,  are: —  Henslowe.       In    chronology    of 

(a)  Blackfritirs. — Jonson,  Chapman,  first      mention      in      H 
Mar  Diary. — Dekker,    Chettle,    I 

(b)  Shakespeare,      Jonson,  Day,  Haughton,  Drayton,  Hath- 
Dekker,  \V.  S.                                       away.    Rankins,    Porter.    Nash, 

(c)  Paufs.    Kfarston,       Middleton.  nson,   Monday,   Lee,   Wilson. 
It    is    not    known    that    any    of               Chapman.       Slater,       I  ley  wood, 


164  CHILDREN  OF  THE  CHAPEL  AT  BLACKFRIARS 

in  similar  proportion.  Those  extant  of  the  Henslowian  class  oc- 
cupy generally  the  lower  ranks  of  dramatic  merit.  If  the  fittest 
work  of  all  dramatists  survived,  the  lost  plays  perhaps  could  have 
been  of  mere  historical  value  to  us. 

That  this  great  category  of  lost  plays  most  likely  was  rich  in 
topical  allusions  has  been  quite  generally  recognized  and  in  par- 
tial details  worked  out.1  But  the  field  yet  awaits  scientific  re- 
search, with  promise  of  large  literary-historical  rewards.2  Among 
such  allusions  there  could  hardly  have  failed  mention  of  a  state 
of  affairs  closely  affecting  both  poets  and  theatres.  This  and  the 
rigid  laws  against  presenting  on  the  stage  matters  touching  the 
official  state  suggest  that  the  sharp  attack  in  Hamlet,  spoken  on 
the  stage  with  impunity,  may  not  have  been  the  most  severe  of 
its  kind.  I  hesitate  to  go  farther  into  the  alluring  field  of  specu- 
lation, preferring  to  await  results  of  research. 

The  losses  through  Henslowe,  as  above  noticed,  sufficiently 
account  for  the  fact  that  the  evidences  of  theatrical  relations  by 
way  of  local  allusions  in  dramas  that  have  reached  us  belong 
mainly  to  the  non-Henslowian  plays, — those  of  the  Globe,  Paul's, 
and  Blackfriars.  The  foremost  of  all  these  is  the  famous  chil- 
dren-passage in  Hamlet,  reserved  for  a  special  chapter.3  Besides 
this  there  are  numerous  evidences,  direct  and  indirect,  only  a  part 
of  which  are  taken  up  in  the  following  paragraphs. 

The  passage  in  Hamlet  (late  1601)  showing  the  drawing  away 
of  the  genteel  part  of  the  audience  to  the  more  select  Blackfriars, 
represents  the  condition  not  only  in  the  Globe  but  in  all  the  other 
public  theatres.     It  is  well  supported  by  passages  in  other  plays. 

Pitt,  Wadeson,  Smyth,  S.  Row-  May,  1906)  763-78.     This  latter  ar- 

ley,    Bird    (Borne),   Middleton,  tide  gives  practically  the  substance 

Webster,   Singer.  °^,th.e  former. 
Removing  from  this  last  list  the  2  Since    writing   these   paragraphs 

names  of  Jonson,  Chapman,  Mars-  my  own  researches  have  brought  to 

ton,  and  Middleton,  who   did  their  light  great  bulks  of  material  in  this 

chief   work   for   Blackfriars,   Globe,  field, — too    extensive    to    find    itself 

and  Paul's,  it  will  be  seen  that  the  in  print  yet, — but  of  a  value  quite 

Henslowian     writers     are     on     the  disproportionate  to  the  bulk.    These 

whole  of  a  very  inferior  rank.  documents    include    the    sources    of 

1See    Sidney    Lee,    The    Topical  hitherto  unknown  dramas  by  Chap- 

Side     of     the     Elizabethan     Drama  man,    Dekker,    Webster,    Ford,    and 

(New  Shakesp.  Soc.  Trans.,  Series  others,    with    certain    fragments    of 

I,   1887),   llsqq.     Also  cf.   eundem,  dramas, — all  purely  local. 
The  Future  of  Shakespearean  Re-  * Infra,  173-85. 

search     (The    Nineteenth    Century, 


RELATIONS  OF  BLACKFRIARS 


165 


In  Poetaster  {ca.  April,  1601)  Histrio,  a  player  standing  for 
the  spirit  of  the  public  theatres  in  general  and  of  the  Globe  in 
particular,  is  made  to  declare  this  condition  of  leanness  as  a  re- 
sult of  the  lack  of  gentleman  patronage.1  In  Cynthia's  Revels 
(ca.  April,  1600)  the  better  classes  are  represented  as  avoiding 
the  public  theatres  because  of  the  immodesty  and  obscenity  in 
the  plays  there,  and  attending  Blackfriars  where  there  was  a  more 
wholesome  vogue.2 

By  a  comparison  it  will  be  seen  that  the  Blackfriars  plays  of 
1597-1603  are  freer  from  such  offensive  qualities  than  the  plays 
of  any  other  theatre  except  Shakespeare's  at  the  Globe. 

Again,  in  Poetaster  the  public  theatre  audiences  on  the  Bank- 
side  are  ridiculed  as  composed  of  "all  the  sinners  of  the  suburbs."8 


1  Histrio  is  speaking  of  the  play 
Horace  [Jonson]  supposed  was  in 
progress  against  him  under  the  hand 
of  Demetrius  [Dekker]  thus: — 

"O,  it  will  get  us  a  huge  deal  of 
money,  captain,  and  we  have  need 
on't;  for  this  winter  [1600-1]  has 
made  us  all  poorer  than  so  many 
starved  snakes :  nobody  comes  at  us, 

not  a  gentleman  nor  a  ." 

— Poetaster,  III,  i.,  Jonson's  Works 
(ed.  Gifford-Cunningham),  I,  2346- 
235o. 

2 In  the  Induction  to  Cynthia's 
Revels  a  genteel  auditor  who  has 
come  to  Blackfriars  because  dis- 
pleased with  the  plays  offered  by 
the  public  theatres  is  giving  advice 
to  the  Children  and  their  poets  as 
to  what  to  avoid.  His  part  is  spo- 
ken thus : — 

"3  Child  [Sal  Pavy].—  ...  It 
is  in  the  general  behalf  of  this 
fair  society  here  that  I  am  to  speak, 
at  least  the  more  judicious  part  of 
it,  which  seems  much  distasted  with 
the  immodest  and  obscene  writing 
of  many  in  their  plays." 

Then  he  goes  on  to  advise  their 
poets  what  to  avoid.  This  part  is 
not  aimed  as  satire  at  the  Boys,  nor 
at  their  poets  (Jonson  himself  and 
Chapman),  but  is  a  shaft  shot  over 
their  shoulders  at  the  public  the- 
atres, thus : — 

"Besides,  they  could  wish  your 
poets  would  leave  to  be  promoters 


of  other  men's  jests,  and  to  waylay 
all  the  stale  apothegms,  or  old 
books,  they  can  hear  of,  in  print  or 
otherwise,  to  farce  their  scenes  with- 
al. That  they  would  not  so  penu- 
riously  glean  wit  from  every  laun- 
dress or  hackney-man,  or  derive 
their  best  grace,  with  servile  imi- 
tation, from  common  stages,  or  ob- 
servation of  the  company  they  con- 
verse with ;  as  if  their  invention 
lived  wholly  upon  another  man's 
trencher.  Again,  that  feeding  their 
friends  with  nothing  of  their  own, 
but  what  they  have  twice  or  thrice 
cooked,  they  should  not  wantonly 
give  out,  how  soon  they  had  drest 
it ;  nor  how  many  coaches  came  to 
carry  away  the  broken  meat,  besides 
hobby-horses  and  foot-cloth  nags. 

2  Child  [Jack  Underwood]. — So, 
sir,  this  is  all  the  reformation  you 
seek  ? 

3  Child. — It  is ;  do  not  you  think 
it  necessary  to  be  practiced,  my  lit- 
tle wag? 

2  Child. — Yes,  where  any  such 
ill-habited   custom   is   received." 

This  last  statement,  as  the  spirit 
throughout,  shows  the  "custom"  was 
not  "received"  at  Blackfriars,  but 
on  the  "common  stages,"  whose 
practice  is  to  be  avoided. 

'Histrio.  speaking  of  "Humours, 
Revels,  and  Satire."  i<  made  to  say, 
"They  are  on  the  other  side  of  Ty- 
ber  [1.  r..  at  Blackfriars]  :  we  [pub- 


166 


CHILDREN  OF  THE  CHAPEL  AT  BLACKFRIARS 


Jonson's  Prologue  to  Cynthia's  Revels  is  one  of  the  best  ex- 
amples showing  the  select  character  of  the  Blackfriars  audience, 
before  whose  learned  judgments  Jonson  is  especially  proud  to 
have  his  plays  appear.1  Dekker  in  Satiromastix  (summer,  1601) 
enviously  replies  to  this  with  the  flirt  of  a  sneer  in  which  never- 
theless there  lies  the  tacit  admission  of  the  difference  in  question.2 

The  declaration  in  the  Prologue  to  Eastward  Ho  (spring, 
1605)  that  ^e  Blackfriars  has  ever  been  imitated3  refers  mainly 
to  the  Elizabethan  period.  We  know  further  from  Hamlet  that 
the  Boys  were  "now  the  fashion,"  and  it  is  not  likely  that  other 
theatres  and  poets  failed  to  get  as  nearly  into  fashion  as  possible. 

The  general  evidence  is  sufficient  to  establish  the  fact  of  imi- 
tation, but  details  do  not  lie  so  patent.  The  final  investigation 
of  the  thesis  involved  must  be  reserved  for  later  research.  I  think 
the  evidence  will  show  that  the  new  sort  of  plays  introduced  at 


lie  theatres]  have  as  much  ribaldry 
in  our  plays  as  can  be,  as  you  would 
wish,  captain :  all  the  sinners  in  the 
suburbs  come  and  applaud  our  ac- 
tion daily." — Poetaster,  III,  i,  op. 
cit.,  232a. 

Prologue 
If  gracious  silence,  sweet  attention, 
Quick  sight  and  quicker  apprehen- 
sion, 
The    lights    of    judgment's    throne, 

shine  any  where, 
Our  doubtful   author  hopes   this   is 

their  sphere ; 
And  therefore  opens  he  himself  to 

those, 
To  other  weaker  brains  his  labours 

close, 
As    loth   to   prostitute   their   virgin- 
strain, 
To     every    vulgar     and    adulterate 

brain. 
In  this  alone,  his  Muse  her  sweet- 
ness hath, 
She  shuns   the   print  of  any  beaten 

path ; 
And  proves  new  ways  to  come  to 

learned  ears : 
Pied  ignorance  she  neither  loves  nor 

fears. 
Nor    hunts    she    after    popular    ap- 
plause, 
Or  foamy  praise,  that  drops   from 
common  jaws: 


The  garland   that   she  wears,   their 
hands  must  twine, 

Who  can  both  censure,  understand, 
define 

What  merit  is :  then  cast  those  pierc- 
ing rays, 

Round  as  a  crown,  instead  of  hon- 
ored bays, 

About  his  poesy;  which,  he  knows, 
affords 

Words,  above  action ;  matter,  above 
words. 

— Ben     Jonson,     Cynthia's     Revels, 

Prologue. 

2  Jonson    is    satirized    under    the 

name   of   Horace   speaking   thus   in 

parody  on  the  Prologue  to  Cynthia's 

Revels: — 

"Horace. — The  muses'  birds  the  bees 
were  hiv'd  and  fled, 

Us  in  our  cradle  thereby  prophesy- 
ing 

That    we    to    learned    ears    should 
sweetly   sing. 

But    to    the   vulgar    and   adulterate 
brain 

Should  loath   to  prostitute  our  vir- 
gin-strain." 

[Italics  in  original]. — Thomas  Dek- 
ker, Satiromastix,  in  Origin  of  the 

English      Drama     (ed.       Hawkins, 

1773),   III,   132. 

3"  .  .  .    we   have   evermore   been 

imitated." 


RELATIONS  OF  BLACKFRIARS  167 

Paul's  by  Marston  and  Middleton,  displacing  the  "musty  fop- 
peries" the  boys  there  had  been  presenting,  owes  somewhat  to 
the  influence  of  Jonson's  and  Chapman's  plays  at  Blackfriars. 
The  introduction  of  the  masque  within  the  play1  and  the  general 
trend  of  realism  in  other  theatres  are  also  involved.  The  in- 
fluences on  Shakespeare,-  as  for  example  in  Hamlet?  The  Ton- 
pest,4  and  certain  other  plays  after  the  period  of  the  histories,  as 
also  on  Beaumont  and  Fletcher,  promise  peculiar  interest.  But 
parts  of  the  field,  affording  only  internal  evidence  and  circum- 
stantial suggestion,  are  too  shadowy  to  be  alluring. 

It  may  seem  a  more  tenable  thesis  that  most  of  the  Blackfriars 
plays  are  chargeable  with  imitation.  Chapman,  the  chief  poet 
there,  took  from  Shakespeare  materials  or  suggestions  in  every 
play  he  wrote  for  the  Chapel  Children.5  But  he  did  not  do  this 
in  the  plays  he  wrote  before  associating  himself  with  Blackfriars. 
The  extent  of  his  indebtedness  seems  to  be  as  follows.6 

Chapman  seems  in  each  instance  to  have  used  Shakespeare's 
latest  play.  In  Sir  Giles  Goosecap  (ca.  fall,  1600)  the  title  char- 
acter in  his  ninniness  and  misuse  of  words  looks  like  the  notable 
character  of  Much  Ado  about  Nothing  (ca.  1599)  Constable 
Dogberry  in  excessive  leanness  of  absurdity  made  lanker  by  the 
extremities  of  idiocy  protruding  from  the  dress  of  knighthood. 
In   The   Gentleman    (slier    (ca.   summer,    1601)    Bassiolo  seems 

lCf.  supra,  118-22,  1222-23.  speare,  "Der  weg  des  sammlers,  der 
2The  long  dominant  supposition  den  spuren  der  wirkung  Shake- 
that  Shakespeare  by  virtue  of  tran-  speares  nachgeht,  wird  so  oft  ge- 
scendent  genius  was  only  the  giver,  kreuzt  von  lockenden  pfaden.  die  zu 
not  likewise  the  receiver,  of  dram-  Jonson  laufen,  dass  ihm  manchmal 
atic  influences  is  fortunately  pass-  zweifel  aufsteigen  k<  union,  welchem 
ing.  Among  the  serious  attempts  der  beiden  manner  die  fuhrerrolle 
to  reach  the  truth  in  one  part  of  zuzutheilen  sei." — Vorwori  v\\  Stu- 
the  field  may  be  mentioned,  despite  dien  iiber  Shakespeare's  Wirkung 
its  defects,  the  work  of  A.  H.  Thorn-  auf  Zeitgenossische  Dramatiker 
dike.  The  Influence  of  Beaumont  (1905).  Cf.  supra,  ]:.'::. 
and  Fletcher  on  Shakespeare  (1901).  supra,   1.">.   133;  infra,   11 

All  evidences  tend  to  show  that  *Cf.  supra.   10 

no  dramatist  of  his  time  influenced  8On  the  plays  in  question,  except 

his   fellows  more  than  Shakespeare  Sir  Giles  Goosecap,  see  also  EL  Kop- 

did,    and    none    was    influenced    by  pel,   Quellenstudicn   cu   den   Dranien 

them  more  than  he.     Professor  Dr.  George  Chapmans,  &c  {Quelienund 

Emil    Koppel,  of  the  University  at  Forschungen,     Heft     B2.,     Strassb. 

Strassburg,  who  has  made  extensive  18 

researches  in  the  Elizabethan-Jaco-  'For   evidences    fixing   the   dates 

bean      drama.      says,      with      refer-  and   further   discussion    see  Flays  in 

ence    to    the     influence    of    Shake-  complete  work,  vol.  II. 


168  CHILDREN  OF  THE  CHAPEL  AT  BLACKFRIARS 

modeled  after  Malvolio  of  Twelfth  Night  (ca.  1600),  while  the 
title  character  of  M.  D 'Olive  (ca.  Oct -Dec.  1601)  is  Bassiolo 
developed.  May  Day  (ca.  May,  1602)  contains  an  answer  to  the 
attack  on  Blackfriars  in  Hamlet  (late  1601 — early  1602) 1  in  the 
form  of  satirizing  parodies  on  the  "To  be"  soliloquy  and  other 
parts.  These  read  as  if  Chapman  had  heard  Hamlet  once  or  twice 
while  May  Day  was  in  progress,  and  had  caught  the  general 
trend.  Acts  III  and  IV  contain  bits  of  satire  certainly  made  thus. 
The  Widow's  Tears  (Sept.,  1602)  in  overcoming  of  feminine 
scruples  is  mindatory  of  The  Taming  of  the  Shrew  (early  1602?). 

Did  Chapman  intend  these  character-extensions  as  ridicule  of 
Shakespeare?  Or  did  he  simply  find  good  comedial  material 
here  ready  for  further  development?  At  any  rate,  even  if  it  is 
proved  that  Chapman  here  imitated,  that  fact  would  not  disprove 
that  his  and  Jonson's  plays  at  Blackfriars  in  turn  were  imitated. 
Both  seem  true.  Opposition  to  a  rival  institution  upon  principle 
and  imitation  of  its  successes  at  the  same  time  are  not  incom- 
patible. 

The  opposition  of  the  Globe  to  the  Blackfriars  is  only  typical 
of  conditions  in  all  the  other  public  theatres.  Hamlet  tells  us 
thus  much.  Dekker's  "the  puppet-teacher"2  in  Satiromastix  (at 
the  Globe,  summer,  1601)  is  a  thrust  at  the  Boys  as  well  as  at 
Jonson.  The  minor  reference  in  the  Prologue  to  Troihis  and 
Cressida  (ca.  1602,  late)  can  hardly  be  called  friendly.3  Paul's 
Boys  and  the  Chapel  Children  in  1580-84  and  at  other  periods 
had  performed  together.  But  under  the  new  conditions  Paul's 
and  the  public  theatres  made  common  cause  against  Blackfriars, 
and  found  a  convenient  means  of  expressing  their  attitude  through 
furthering  on  their  stages  the  personal  quarrels  of  certain  dram- 
atists opposed  to  Jonson  of  the  Chapel  Boys'  theatre. 

I  must  here  notice  this  incident,  since  it  is  connected  with  the 
theatrical  conditions  in  hand. 

1  Written  late  1601.  First  acted  A  Prologue  arm'd,  but  not  in  con- 
late  1601  —  early  1602,  doubtless  at  fidence 

the  Christmas  season.     See  also  su-  Of  Authors  pen,  or  Actors  voyce." 

pra,  86,  and  infra,  174-75,  182-841.  This  is  in  reference  and  reply  to 

s"Hold,      silence,      the      puppet-  Jonson's   armed   Prologue  to   Poet- 

teacher    speaks." — Satiromastix,    op.  aster,  in  which  the  public  theatres, 

cit.,  Ill,  171.  and    particularly   the    Globe    in   the 

*  .  .  .    "And   hither    am    I    come  anticipated   Satiromastix   there,   are 


RELATIONS  OF  BLACKFRIARS  169 

The  personal  quarrel  between  Jonson  on  the  one  side  and  Mars- 
ton  and  Dekker  on  the  other,  conducted  on  the  battle-field  of  the 
stage,  was  merely  incidental  to  the  general  state,  arising  partly 
out  of  theatrical,  partly  out  of  personal  relations.  But  had  it  not 
been  fostered  by  the  theatres  it  could  never  have  been  tolerated, 
could  not  even  have  come  into  existence  before  an  audience.  An 
institution  does  not  easily  lend  itself  as  an  organ  of  mere  per- 
sonal animus.     It  served  the  theatres  as  a  temporary  vent.1 

The  personal  phases  of  the  quarrel  can  be  briefly  stated,  so  far 
as  they  appear  in  literary  form.  They  have  been  elaborately  dis- 
cussed by  Fleay,  Penniman,  and  Small,  and  treated  somewhat  by 
practically  every  literary  historian  or  critic  that  has  touched  upon 
the  period.2  But  as  the  main  events  have  been  given  incorrect 
historical  perspective  by  the  confusion  of  chronology,  I  sum- 
marize certain  conclusions  here  in  accordance  with  the  dates  es- 
tablished upon  final  evidence  under  the  list  of  plays,  following.3 

The  first  traces  are  not  vicious,  and  consist  of  literary  jibes. 
In  The  Scourge  of  Villainy  (Stationers'  Register,  Sept.  8,  1598) 
Marston  glanced  at  Jonson  through  the  character  of  "judicial 
Torquatus"  in  the  address  "To  those  that  seem  judicial  Perusers." 
and  expected  that  Torquatus  would  vouchsafe  the  new  volume 
"some  of  his  new-minted  epithets  (as  real,  intrinsecate,  Del- 
phic)," without  understanding  a  word  of  it.  Late  in  the  same 
year,  Marston  in  his  revision  of  Histriomastix  (1598)  reshaped 

represented  as  so  hostile  as  to  re-  volume  to  disproving  the  positions 

quire  such  armed  protection  of  both  of    his    predecessors,    and    on    the 

author  and  actors  at  Blackfriars.  whole  is  sound  in  his  own  identifi- 

1  See  further,  infra,  1804.  cations  but  wide  of  the  mark  in  his 

'The  Rev.  F.  G.  Fleay,  A  Chron-  datings. 
icle  History  of  the  London  Stage  By  all  these  scholars  the  quarrel 
(1890),  passim,  and  A  Biographical  is  given  wrong  aspects  through  non- 
Chronicle  of  the  English  Drama  sequential  relation  of  plays  and 
I559~i(>42  (1891),  I— II,  ad  loc.,  fol-  events.  The  personal  side  is  incor- 
lows  the  ministerial  method  of  find-  rectly  regarded  as  having  consid- 
ing  allegory  in  the  plays  concerned,  erable  independent  importance  in- 
an<l  consequently  arrives  at  roman-  stead  of  being  subordinate  t<>  Un- 
tie identifications  of  characters.  J.  larger  conditions  that  made  it  pos- 
H.  Penniman.  The  War  of  the  The-  sible. 

atres    (1897),    likewise  finds   unten-  'See    the    respective    titles    under 

able    identifications.      R.    A.    Small,  Plays,  complete   work.   vol.    II.   for 

The     Stage-Quarrel     between     Ben  all    evidences    and    full    treatment    in 

Jonson  and  the  so-called  Poetasters  elaborate  detail,  with  extensive  ref- 

(1899),  devotes  a  large  part  of  his  erences. 


170  CHILDREN  OF  THE  CHAPEL  AT  BLACKFRIARS 

the  features  of  Chrysogonus  and  gave  them  a  few  touches  that 
must  undoubtedly  have  reminded  the  audience  of  Jonson. 

Jonson's  Every  Man  in  his  Humour  (ca.  Aug.-Sept.  1598) 
had  appeared  before  either  of  the  above,  and  consequently  con- 
tains no  trace  of  the  quarrel  in  even  its  mildest  form.  But  his 
next  play,  Every  Man  out  of  his  Humour  (ca.  Aug.,  1599)  re- 
plied to  both  of  Marston's  jibes  by  making  a  character,  Clove, 
evidently  introduced  for  no  other  purpose,  talk  fustian  words 
culled  out  of  The  Scourge  of  Villainy  and  Histriomastix.  Mean- 
while, Marston  had  given  Antonio  and  Mellida  (ca.  first  half  of 
1599)  to  the  stage  at  Paul's  without  a  word  of  bickering  against 
Jonson. 

Jonson  and  Dekker  during  August  and  September,  1599, 
worked  in  collaboration  for  Henslowe  on  Page  of  Plymouth  and 
Robert  II  King  of  Scots.  Probably  also  Marston  worked  with 
them  in  September  on  this  latter  play. 

Up  to  this  time  (Sept.,  1599)  there  seems  to  be  no  serious  per- 
sonal feeling  between  Jonson  and  Marston.  Dekker  had  not  yet 
been  in  the  least  concerned.  It  is  most  probable  that  the  inti- 
macy of  collaboration  sowed  the  seeds  of  discord.  Jonson's  per- 
sonality could  brook  little  opposition.  He  had  no  patience  with 
such  as  we  know  Dekker  and  his  work  to  have  been.  But  on 
Marston's  side  there  appears  as  yet  no  rankling,  for  about  Nov., 
1599,  appeared  at  Paul's  his  Antonio's  Revenge,  with  no  word 
directed  at  Jonson. 

In  September,  1599,  Chettle,  Dekker,  and  Haughton  completed 
Patient  Grisell,  probably  first  acted  ca.  January,  1 599-1600.  The 
Emulo-Owen  duel  of  this  play  is  a  clear  imitation  of  Jonson's 
Brisk-Lentulo  duel  in  Every  Man  out  of  his  Humour  that  had 
appeared  at  least  four  months  before.  From  Jonson's  later  at- 
tack (i.  e.,  in  Poetaster)  he  apparently  charged  this  imitation  up 
as  one  of  Dekker's  plagiarisms. 

Cynthia's  Revels  (ca.  April-May,  1600)  gives  us  the  first  real 
personal  bitterness  of  the  quarrel  and  its  first  importance  on  the 
stage.  There  Jonson  caricatured  some  of  the  features  of  Mars- 
ton in  Hedon,  and  of  Dekker  in  Anaides,  while  assuming  to  him- 
self some  of  the  general  excellences  of  Crites.  This  was  played 
by  the  Blackfriars  Boys.     Almost  simultaneously  Marston  pre- 


RELATIONS  OF  BLACKFRIARS  171 

sented  Jack  Drum's  Entertainment  (ca.  May,  1600)  on  the  stage 
by  the  Paul's  Boys,  unfavorably  representing  Jonson  as  Brabant 
Senior  and  mentioning  himself  as  "the  new  poet  Mcllidus." 

There  is  no  known  cause  in  any  existing  drama  or  other  writ- 
ing by  either  Marston  or  Jonson  for  the  sharp  personal  attacks 
of  these  two  plays.  As  both  appeared  at  practically  the  same 
time,  neither  Is  the  cause  of  the  other,  and  neither  play  refers  to 
the  other.  The  only  explanation  of  the  personalities  seems  to  be 
that  the  close  literary  relations  of  August-September,  1599,  had 
bred  enmity  between  .Marston  and  Dekker  on  the  one  side  and 
Jonson  on  the  other.  The  only  explanation  of  the  stage-publicity 
of  these  personal  relations  is  the  theatrical  status  that  fostered  it, 
as  already  discussed  and  as  indicated  further  in  Hamlet.'1 

A  year  later.  Marston  replied  in  his  behalf  to  Cynthia's  Revels 
by  What  You  Will  {ca.  April,  1601)  at  Paul's,  making  some  of 
Jonson's  features  unpleasantly  prominent  in  Lampatho  and  him- 
self assuming  the  better  traits  of  "squareness"  in  I Juadratus. 

Simultaneously  appeared  at  Blackfriars  Jonson's  Poetaster  (ca. 
April,  1601),  violently  attacking  Marston  and  Dekker  as  Cris- 
pinus  and  Demetrius  respectively,  while  Jonson  martyred  him- 
self as  Horace.  This  attack  is  not  in  reply  to  anything  in  any  of 
the  former  plays,  but  in  anticipation  of  a  lampoon  that  Jonson 
believed  Marston  and  Dekker  were  preparing  against  him  in  a 
play  to  be  presented  at  the  Globe.  There  seems  no  explanation 
of  this  rabidness  except  that  personal  relations  had  become  se- 
verely acute,  and  that  theatrical  conditions  made  such  public  ex- 
hibition possible. 

Hitherto  Dekker  had  made  no  reply  to  Jonson.  But  after 
Poetaster  he  flamed  out  with  Satiro)nastix  (ca.  June-July,  1601). 
Marston  seems  to  have  furnished  some  of  the  fuel. 

Jonson's  final  reply  was  his  Apologetical  Dialogue,  "spoken 
onl)  <»nce  upon  the  stage"  and  then  by  himself  as  "The  Author," 
apparently  in  the  spring  of  1602. 

This  was  the  end  of  the  personal  quarrel  on  the  stage.  Jonson 
no  more  refers  to  it.  Marston  thereafter  took  Jonson's  place  as 
poet  for  the  Blackfriars  Boys,  and  in  his  Dutch  Courtezan  |  fall- 
wint..   [602)  and   The  Malcontent  (spring,   1603)   no  reference  is 

1  Supra,  158*;  infra,  174,  F>,  180*. 


172  CHILDREN  OF  THE  CHAPEL  AT  BLACKFRIARS 

made  to  the  recent  unpleasantness.  Absence  of  reference  in 
these  two  plays  is  negative  proof  that  the  personal  war-cloud  had 
passed,  by  1602.  Positive  proof  is  in  the  year  1604,  when  Mars- 
ton  dedicated  The  Malcontent  to  Jonson,  and  also  wrote  com- 
mendatory verses  for  Sejanus.  Dekker,  however,  cherished  ill- 
feeling  as  late  as  1609,  in  The  Guls  Home-Book.1 

The  quarrel  in  its  personal  aspects  was  of  much  less  impor- 
tance than  usually  supposed.  So  far  as  we  can  now  identify 
them,  it  includes  only  these  three  men.  But  from  Jonson's  Apol- 
ogetical  Dialogue  and  from  Dekker's  address  To  the  World  in 
Satiromastix,  we  are  led  to  believe  that  other  poets  and  their 
theatres  were  involved.  Doubtless  they  were.  But  as  the  plays 
have  not  come  to  light  and  are  probably  irretrievably  lost,  we 
can  now  say  no  more  about  them. 

The  attempt  to  identify  Shakespeare  on  this  personal  side  in 
Troilus  and  Cressida  hardly  needs  refutation.  Beyond  the  minor 
reference  in  the  Prologue,2  I  find  nothing  in  the  play  touching 
either  the  personal  or  the  impersonal  side.3 

1  have  given  this  incident  of  the  personal  quarrel  more  space 
than  its  relative  importance  demands,  but  not  more  than  seems 
required  to  put  it  into  its  proper  perspective  as  a  minor  matter  in 
the  history  of  stage-relations.4 

'See  supra,  1334,  140s.  of    William   Shakespeare    (5th    ed., 

2  Supra,  1683.  1905)    2371;   R.   Boyle,   Troilus  and 
*  Scholars    differ    widely    on    the      Cressida,      in     Englische     Studien 

play.    See  for  example,  R.  A.  Small,       (1902),  XXX,  21-59. 

op.  cit.,  139-71;  Sidney  Lee,  A  Life  4See  further,  infra,  180*. 


CHAPTER  XIV 

THE  HAMLET   PASSAGE  ON  THE  BLACKFRIARS  CHILDREN 

The  Shakespeare  student  has  already  anticipated  conclusions 
made  possible  by  the  documents  treated  in  the  foregoing  pages. 
I  have  little  more  left  to  do  than  to  transcribe  those  conclusions 
in  the  briefest  possible  manner. 

Shakespeare's  reference  to  the  Children-players  is  at  once  the 
best  known  and  yet  the  newest  record  touching  contemporary 
stage  conditions.  Explanations  have  been  attempted  by  every 
student  of  Hamlet.1  These  range  from  the  guess  of  dilettanteism 
to  the  plausible  hypothesis  and  occasional  statement  of  fact. 

Not  only  does  the  evidence  now  at  hand  explain  practically 
every  item  in  this  passage,  but  in  turn  Shakespeare's  record  be- 
comes available  thereby  as  one  of  the  most  important  contribu- 
tions made  to  the  history  of  this  royally  favored  company  of 
Children-actors  at  Blackfriars. 

For  purposes  of  comparison,  I  here  subjoin  the  passage2  as  it 
appears  in  Qlt  Q2,  and  Fx. 


1For    a    convenient   collection    of  ness,  Variorum  Shakespeare,  Hamlet 

representative  examples   from   fore-  (1877),    I,    162-168.      No   collection 

most   scholars   to   the   date   of   that  of  the  recent  and  better  interpreta- 

publication,    see    Dr.    H.    H.    Fur-  tions  has  been  made. 

'The  passages  are  quoted  as  they  appear  in  H.  H.  Furness,  Variorum 
Shakespeare,  Hamlet  (1877),  II,  59,  and  I,  162-68. 

Q.   (1603) 

968.  Ham.     Players,  what   Players  be  tiny? 

Ross.     My  Lord,  the  Tragedians  of  the  Citty, 

Those  that  you  took  delight  to  see  so  often. 

Ham.     How  comes  it  that  they  trauell?     Do  they  grow  restie? 

GU.     No  my  Lord,  their  reputation  holds  as  it  was  wont 

Ham.     I  low  then? 

Gil.     Yfaith  my  Lord,  noueltie  carries  it  away. 

For  tlu-  principal]  publike  audience  that 

Came  to  them,  arc  turned  to  priuate  playes, 

And  to  the  humour  of  children. 


174  CHILDREN  OF  THE  CHAPEL  AT  BLACKFRIARS 

I  accept  it  as  a  conclusion  now  beyond  debate  that  the  whole 
passage  in  Fx  was  written  in  1601  and  first  acted  by  the  closing 
months  of  that  year  or  the  opening  of  1602,  the  only  period  in 

Q2  (1604),  II,  ii,  315-24 

315        Ham.  What  players  are  they? 

Ros.  Even  those  you  were  wont  to  take  such  delight 
in,  the  tragedians  of  the  city. 

Ham.     How  chances   it  they  trauaile?  their  residence,  both 
in  reputation  and  profit,  was  better  both  ways. 
320        Ros.     I    think  their   inhibition   comes   by   the  means   of   the 
late  innovation. 

Ham.  Do  they  hold  the  same  estimation  they  did  when 
I  was  in  the  city?  are  they  so  followed? 

Ros.     No,  indeed,  are  they  not. 

Lines  325-45  ("Ham.  How  comes  it?  .  .  .  Hercules  and  his  load  too") 
are  omitted  from  Q2,  Q3,  Qt,  Qs.  In  all  the  Qq,  the  next  speech  begins, 
"Ham.     It  is  not  very  strange ;  for  my  uncle,"  &c,  as  in  Fi,  infra,  1.  346. 

Fi  (1623),  II,  ii,  315-50 

Fi  gives  315-24  exactly  as  Q2,  with  the  exception  of  transposing  "they" 
and  "are"  in  324,  and  continues  with  325-45,  omitted  from  the  Q2,  Q3,  Q*, 
Q6,  thus:— 

325        Ham.     How  comes  it?    Do  they  grow  rusty? 

Ros.  Nay,  their  endeavour  keeps  in  the  wonted  pace; 
but  there  is,  sir,  an  aerie  of  children,  little  eyases,  that  cry 
out  on  the  top  of  question  and  are  most  tyrannically  clapped 
for't;  these  are  now  the  fashion,  and  so  berattle  the  cora- 
330  mon  stages — so  they  call  them' — that  many  wearing  rapiers 
are  afraid  of  goose-quills,  and  dare  scarce  come  thither. 

Ham.  What,  are  they  children?  who  maintains  'em? 
how  are  they  escoted?  Will  they  pursue  the  quality  no 
longer  than  they  can  sing?  will  they  not  say  afterwards,  if 
335  they  should  grow  themselves  to  common  players, — as  it  is 
most  like,  if  their  means  are  no  better, — their  writers  do  them 
wrong,  to  make  them  exclaim  against  their  own  succession? 

Ros.     'Faith,    there    has    been    much    to-do    on    both    sides, 
and  the  nation  holds  it  no  sin  to  tarre  them  to  controversy; 
340    there   was    for   a    while   no    money   bid    for    argument,    unless 
the  poet  and  the  player  went  to  cuffs  in  the  question. 

Ham.     Is't  possible? 

Guil.     Oh,  there  has  been  much   throwing  about  of  brains. 

Ham.     Do  the  boys  carry  it  away? 
345        Ros.     Ay.  that  they  do,  my  lord;  Hercules  and  his  load  too. 

Ham.  It  is  not  very  strange ;  for  my  uncle  is  king  of 
Denmark,  and  those,  that  would  make  mows  at  him  while 
my  father  lived  give  twenty,  forty,  fifty,  a  hundred  ducats 
a-piece,  for  his  picture  in  little.  'Sblood,  there  is  something 
in  this  more  than  natural,  if  philosophy  could  find  it  out. 


THE  HAMLET  PASSAGE 


175 


the  history  of  the  drama  and  stage  at  which  the  allusions  could 
have  point  or  fit  the  facts.1 

The  strolling  players  arc  those  of  the  public  theatres, — men. 
In  giving  the  reason  for  their  traveling,  Shakespeare  glances  at 
the  theatrical  conditions  of  the  times,  as  already  examined.  The 
Queen  in  carrying  out  her  notions  of  what  she  wished  in  the  way 
of  a  theatre,  established  the  Blackfriars  with  the  Children  of  the 
Chapel.  With  this  grew  up  die  notion  of  restrictions  and  pro- 
hibitions of  the  public  theatres.  For  the  Queen  to  maintain  a 
theatre  at  all  was  an  innovation  in  itself.  But  to  maintain  a  pri- 
vate theatre  and  at  the  same  time  to  attempt  to  shut  up  all  but 
two  of  the  public  playhouses,  with  severe  restrictions  on  even 
those  two.  was  Wh  an  innovation  and  an  inhibition  at  once,  that 
seemed  related  to  each  other  as  cause  and  effect.1  This  not  only 
diminished  the  reputation  and  profit  of  the  unfavored  players  and 
drove  them  into  the  country,'  but  also  justly  called  for  so  much 


[1(502]  xxvjto  Julij 
James  Roberts  Kntivd  tor  his  Copie 
vnder  the  handes  of  master 
Pasfeild  and  master  waterson 
warden  A  booke  called  'the 
Revenge  of  HAMLETT  Prince 
[of]  Denmark/  as  yt  was  late- 
lit'  Acted  by  the  Lord  Chamber- 

leyne   his  servantes vjd 

— E.  Arber,  A  Transcript  of  the 
Registers  of  the  Compa)iv  of  Sta- 
tioners 1354-1640  ( IST.-.-'.H  ) ,  1 1 1,  212. 
play  in  final  form,  from 
which  the  above  publication  was 
garbled,  was  on  the  stage  long 
enough  before  this  entry  to  inspire 
the  surreptitious  issue. 

See  also  on  the  dating,  supra, 
May  Pay  (86,  L68),  Widovfs  Tears 
(ibid.),  Clifton's  Complaint  (86), 
the  stage-quarrel  (  L68*  m.  L81), 
the  -trained  official  and  theatrical 
relation-  (157).  Also  sec  infra, 
1-;  B4\ 

All  evidences  combine  to  show 
Hamlet  was  written  late  1601,  and 
first  acted  late  L601  —  early  L602, 
doubtless  the  chief  attraction  of  the 
Christmas  season. 

'"I  think  their  inhibition  comes 
by  the  means  of  the  late  innova- 
tion " 

M  do  not  know  the  detailed  basis 


for  Shakespeare's  claim  as  to  the 
players     having     to     travel.     This 

might  be  ascertained  by  long  re- 
search in  the  archives  of  munici- 
palities. But  the  preceding  pages 
have  shown  sufficiently  that  the 
statement  is  based  upon  actual  con- 
ditions of  hardship  resulting  from 
the  Queen's  attitude.  The  few 
known  details  of  the  traveling  com- 
panies  at   this    period   are   these: 

In  L599,  a  company  of  English 
actors  under  Laurence  Fletcher 
(sometimes,  hut  erroneously,  sup- 
posed to  have  been  Shakespeare's 
company)       visited      Scotland,      and 

were  patronized  by  James  VI 

State    Papers,    Elizabeth.    Scotland. 

LXV,  Nfos.  'W  and  •;  1  I.  dated  Nov., 

Public  Record  ( >ffic 
in    Oct.,    1601,    Fletcher    led    a    com- 
pany  thither. 

Shakespeare's  own  company  was 

at  Oxford  and  Cambridge  some- 
time prior  to  the  publication  of 
Hamlet.  <  See  title-page  "t'  Q 
fra.  182*  1.  Whether  these  visits 
antedated  the  Stationers'  R<  1  1 
entry.  86  July.  1608,  is  undeter- 
mined. 

1  [enslowe's    Diary    •  ed     W.    W 

fa,     -how-     Lord 

Worcester's   men,  of  the   Kosp,  went 


176 


CHILDREN  OF  THE  CHAPEL  AT  BLACKFRIARS 


at  least  as  the  mild  righteousness  of  this  passage,  despite  Eliza- 
beth's absolute  law  against  criticism  of  the  state  in  public  plays. 

Under  these  conditions  of  course  the  public  theatres  were  not 
and  could  not  be  "followed"  as  formerly.  The  immediate  source 
of  grief  to  the  "common  stages,"1  as  people  now,  since  the  new 
fashion,  were  calling  the  public  theatres,  whose  cause  Shakespeare 
champions,  lay  in  this  "aerie"  of  "little  eyases"2  that  the  Queen- 
care  was  fledging. 

The  rivalry  is  not  with  inferior  children-actors,  but  with  a 
company  of  boys  whose  unquestioned  excellence  receives  the  gen- 


into  the  country  March  12, 160 [l]-2. 
They  returned  to  London  and  re- 
newed acting  Aug.  17,  1602  (idem, 
179). 

Strolling  players,  of  course,  had 
been  in  earlier  stage-history  per- 
mitted to  wander  at  will.  But 
Shakespeare  cannot  have  these  in 
mind,  for  the  law  of  1597  (supra, 
1523)  put  a  stop  to  this  by  the 
regulating  control  of  noble  patron- 
age. Besides,  the  satire  on  the 
Children  and  theatrical  conditions 
could  not  have  had  point  in  refer- 
ence to  this  earlier  period.  The 
company  to  which  Shakespeare  be- 
longed traveled  in  1593,  1594,  1597, 
but  not  again,  it  seems,  prior  to  the 
Hamlet  presentations  at  the  univer- 
sities. (See  Sidney  Lee,  A  Life  of 
William  Shakespeare,  5th  edition, 
1905,  40,  for  list,  from  which,  how- 
ever, this  last  item  is  omitted). 

No  company  traveled  except 
when  its  profits  in  London  were  un- 
satisfactory. For  this  condition  at 
the  present  period,  the  Blackfriars 
stands  as  the  cause. 

In  only  two  plays  does  Shake- 
speare mention  strolling  players, — 
in  Hamlet  (1601-2)  and  The  Tam- 
ing of  the  Shrew  (1602?),  just  at 
the  time  when  the  Queen's  pur- 
poses were  bearing  bitter  fruit  for 
the  public  theatres. 

1The  practice  of  so  calling  them 
originated  in  the  Queen's  orders 
through  the  Privy  Council  in  dif- 
ferentiation from  Blackfriars.  (See 
supra,  156-571.) 

Jonson  in  The  Case  is  Altered, 
II,   iv,    (at   Blackfriars   ca.    Sept. — 


Oct.,  1597)  uses  "common  theatres" 
and  "public  theatre"  in  a  long  and 
sharp  satire  on  the  sort  of  audi- 
ences frequenting  them.  In  Cyn- 
thia's Revels,  Induction  (ca.  April, 
1600),  he  uses  "common  stages" 
and  "public  theatre"   opprobriously. 

Doubtless  the  frequenters  of  the- 
atres made  the  same  distinction ; — 
conveying  thereby  the  stigma  of  in- 
feriority that  Shakespeare  here  dis- 
relishes. 

But  "common"  in  reference  to 
plays  in  the  sense  of  "ordinary"  or 
"usual"  is  found  very  early.  E.  g., 
in  1552,  Bishop  of  London  Bonner 
issued  to  the  clergy  an  order  pro- 
hibiting in  churches  "all  manner  of 
common  plays,  games,  or  inter- 
ludes" &c.  (See  E.  Malone,  Shake- 
speare Variorum,  ed.  Boswell,  1821, 
III,  45).  But  no  opprobrium  seems 
to  attach  to  the  word  then  as  is  laid 
upon  it  later  in  distinguishing 
Blackfriars  and  public  theatres. 
Examples  of  this  earlier  inoffensive 
use  in  application  to  plays,  games, 
etc.,  are  numerous  even  in  official 
papers  prior  to  1597.  But  the  op- 
probrious sense  of  both  "common" 
and  "public"  applied  to  theatres 
dates  from  that  year. 

2  The  terms  "aerie"  (eagles- 
nest)  and  "eyases"  (eaglets)  ap- 
plied to  the  Queen's  establishment 
present  in  a  single  view  actors  and 
supporter.  There  is  conveyed  also 
the  sense  of  security  of  position 
against  all  interference.  See  fur- 
ther on  this  meaning  under  "aerie," 
The  New  English  Dictionary  (ed. 
Murray).     Compare  also  "her  mai- 


THE  HAMLET  PASSAGE  177 

erous    applause    of    the    most    select    and    judicial    audiences    of 
London.1 

The  men-players  are  doin.L;  their  best  to  maintain  their  pres- 
tige; but  they  are  unable  to  stem  the  tide  of  popularity  and  fash- 
ion. The  followers  after  illustrious  example  have  taken  up  the 
theatre  with  its  privileges  of  privacy,  high  prices,  novelties,  and 
spectacular  effect  as  the  fad  of  the  day.  The  Boy-actors  and 
their  poets  have  rather  got  the  best  of  it  in  the  wit-combat  be- 
tween them  and  the  "common  stages"  and  have  given  the  latter 
such  a  shaking  up  with  their  rattling  fire  as  to  diminish  their  pop- 
ularity still  farther  in  comparison.  The  local  and  personal  drives 
have  caused  my  rapier-girdled  courtier  and  fine  gentleman  to 
avoid  the  public  theatres  rather  than  make  himself  for  coming 
thither  the  subject  of  later  stage-jest  before  his  fashionable  set 
at  Blackfriars.2 


esties  unfledged  minions"  in  The 
Children  of  the  Chapel  Stript  and 
ll'lupt  (1569),  supra,  4l,  and  "neast 
of  boys  able  to  ravish  a  man" 
in  Father  Hubbard's  Tales,  by 
T.    M.    (1604),    infra,    chap.    XVI. 

'"Cry  out  on  the  top  of  ques- 
tion" is  usually  explained  as  a  de- 
traction of  the  Boys ;  as,  "at  the 
top  of  their  voices,"  "with  bad  elo- 
cution," &c.  I  cannot  find  any  de- 
traction of  the  Boys  in  the  whole 
passage.  It  is  not  they,  but  the 
manner  of  their  establishment  and 
support   that    is   objectionable. 

Moreover,  I  find  no  untruth  in 
the  passage.  It  would  be  not  only 
false,  but  would  kill  Shakespeare's 
own  point,  for  him  to  say  the  act- 
ing was  bad.  The  whole  history 
of  the   Roys   shows  it   was  good. 

At  the  time  Hamlet  was  written, 
young  Pavy,  Field,  Underwood,  and 
Ostler  were  among  the  chief  Chil- 
ctors  Pavy  was  famous  then 
as  a  boy  who  acted  old  men's  parts 
luperbly,     and    at    hi*;     death     (  L601 

or  L602?)  was  made  the  subject  of 
Jonson's  noble  tribute  to  him  as  an 
actor,    one  of  the  most  delicate  and 

appreciate  of    excel- 

lence ever  written.  (  See  further, 
Careers  of  Actors,  infra,  vol.  II.) 

latter   thl  a  ere   also 


superior  actors,  and  were  all,  a  few 
years  later,  taken  into  Shakespeare's 
own  company,  where  they  were 
among  the  leaders.  Field  was  sec- 
ond only  to  Burbage.  (See  their 
careers,    u.   s.) 

Also,  at  the  time  Hamlet  was 
written,  the  Boys  were  pleasing  to 
Quern.  Court,  and  critical  London. 
(See  audiences,  supra.  112,  L64 

Historically,  the  notion  of  bad 
acting  has  no  basis. 

I  hat  "cry  out  on  the  top  of 
question"  means  "excel."  "do  with 
unquestioned  excellence,"  "exhibit 
superiority"  is  clear  from  the  Ham- 
let text  in  the  light  of  the  fact-,  as 
It  is  substantiated  by  the 
only  two  known  similar  uses  of 
Shakespeare's  time.  In  this  same 
scene  (II,  ii,  417)  Hamlet  speaks 
of  "others  whose  judgments  cried 
in  the  top  of  mine"  (  excelled. 
were  superior  to].  In  R<>hert  Ar- 
min's  Nest  of  Ninnies  I  L608,  ed 
Collier,  S.  S.  Pub.,  1842,  X 
the  author  speaks  of  "miking  them 
I  fencers  or  players  at  single-stick] 
expert  till  they  cry  it  up  in  the  top 
of    question,"       This    seems    tinal    as 

a  commentary. 

'It  was  the  custom  at  Black- 
friars (and  probably  at  other  the- 
atres)     to     break     jests  up, mi     the 


178  CHILDREN  OF  THE  CHAPEL  AT  BLACKFRIARS 

The  question  of  maintaining  a  company  and  appareling  them, 
or  dressing  them  out,  was,  as  already  noted,1  of  first  importance 
in  enabling  theatrical  and  financial  success.  The  expense  of 
maintenance  was  first.  But  as  Elizabethan  theatres  had  little 
scenery,  they  made  up  for  the  lack  in  appropriate  apparel.  As 
practically  every  play  of  the  time  represents  people  of  station, — 
kings,  queens,  courtiers,  lords,  &c, — the  expense  of  apparel  prob- 
ably equaled  or  exceeded  the  keep  of  the  company.  A  glance 
through  Henslowe's  Diary  shows  the  cost  of  a  pair  of  silk  stock- 
ings from  15  to  20  shillings;  a  doublet  and  hose,  3/.  to  J  I.;  a 
black  satin  suit,  5  /.  A  single  rich  cloak  cost  19  /., — almost  half 
as  much  for  only  part  of  one  costume  as  Evans  was  paying  for 
the  annual  rental  of  Blackfriars.  The  total  value  of  a  theatrical 
wardrobe  probably  exceeded  the  value  of  the  given  theatre  itself.2 

It  is  quite  certain  from  all  testimony  that  the  Children's  ap- 
parel furnished  by  the  Queen  was  of  superior  elegance. 

Since  it  was  generally  known  who  "maintained"  the  Boys  and 
thus  "escoted"  them,  Shakespeare  desiring  merely  to  raise  the 
notion  suggestively  above  the  mental  horizon,  accomplishes  his 
object  fully  by  simply  asking  the  question  and  not  allowing  an 
answer  other  than  that  which  comes  at  once  to  the  mind  of  the 
audience.  To  this  he  adds  the  touch  of  deft  diminution  by  the 
coinage  of  a  word  for  the  occasion  which  no  one  of  the  audience 
could  fail  to  catch  by  the  intonation,  a  slight  gesture,  or  even  the 
very  punning  nature  of  the  word,   indicating  these  lads   were 

audience  or  some  prominent  person-  uations  of  the  wardrobes  of  public 
age.  Such  local  hits  did  not  then  theatres.  Henslowe's  Diary  gives 
and  do  not  now  appear  in  the  by  inventories  and  purchases  a  gen- 
printed  play.  See  such  a  jest  in  eral  notion.  The  Diary  of  Thomas 
the  Induction  to  Cynthia's  Revels;  Platter  (1599)  says,  "Die  Comedien- 
also  the  statement  of  its  prevalence  spieler  sindt  beim  allerkostlich- 
at  Blackfriars  made  by  Sly  in  the  sten  vnndt  zierlichsten  bekleidet." — 
Induction  to  The  Malcontent.  To  (See  extracts  by  Prof.  Binz  in  An- 
the  same  effect  see  The  Guls  Home-  glia  (1899),  XXII,  459.)  Even  in 
Book   (u.  s.,  1334).  1590  a  player  is  represented  by  Rob- 

This  practice  grew  worse  under  ert  Green  as  saying  "his  very  share 

James     I.      Again     and    again    the  in  playing  apparel  would  not  be  sold 

King   was    made   the   target.     This  for  200 1."     (Quoted  in  Sidney  Lee, 

was  one  of  the  chief  causes  for  his  op.    cit.,    1899,    198.)      In    1608    the 

putting     a     summary     end     to    the  wardrobe    of    the    Children    of    the 

Blackfriars  Boys  in  1608.     (See  doc-  King's    Revels    at    Whitefriars    was 

uments   in  later  chapters.)  valued  at  400/., — apparently  in  that 

1  Supra,   128-29.  special     case,     however,     too    high. 

2 There  are  no  known  exact  val-  (See  following  chapters.) 


THE  HAMLET  PASSAGE 


179 


hardly   old  enough  to  wear  players'  "apparel,"   but  must  needs 
wear  the  "cotes"  of  children.1 

Then  with  the  skill  of  the  master  wit  innocently  foreswearing 


*The  meaning  of  "escoted"  lies 
thus  near  home.  It  has  hitherto 
been  explained  as  derived  from  the 
rare  OF.  cscottcr, — dead  even  to  the 
French  more  than  a  hundred  years 
when  Shakespeare  wrote,  and  long 
supplanted   by   ecoter!! 

The  etymological  treatment  of 
"cote,"  "coat,"  "escoted" ;  and  "es- 
cotter,"  "ecoter,"  "escot,"  "scot," 
"shot,"  "shoot,"  is  too  long  for  in- 
sertion here. 

I  note  simply  that  "escotter" 
seems  to  have  died  in  French  about 
the  middle  of  the  15th  century. 
(See  Godefroy,  Dictionnoire  f.'.ln- 
cienne  Langue  Francois,  du  IX*  au 
XV  Steele,  1898.  The  one  late  ex- 
ample there  given  is  clearly  an  ob- 
solete use.) 

Cotgrave's  frequently  quoted  re- 
port of  the  word  in  1611  is  the 
result  of  mere  compilation  of  older 
dictionaries,  not  the  report  of  cur- 
rent usage.  The  form  "escotter"  is 
not  found  in  current  French  liter- 
ature of  Shakespeare's  time,  nor  in 
the  hundred  years  preceding.  The 
title-page  of  Cotgrave's  work 
claims  only  compilation, — "A  Dic- 
Honarie  of  the  French  and  English 
Tongues.  Compiled  by  Randle  Cot- 
grave.  London.  Ifili."  But  it  is 
not  only  a  compilation,  and  there- 
fore of  no  value  as  an  authority 
on  the  current  French,  but  it  is 
also  merely  a  French-English  not 
an  English-French  dictionary,  and 
hence  of  no  value  on  the  English. 

Cotgrave  defines  "Escotter. 
Euery  one  to  pay  his  shot,  or  to 
contribute  somewhat  towards  it, 
&c."  The  meaning  is  correct.  But 
such  a  meaning  and  such  an  ety- 
mology from  such  or  any  reference. 
applied  to  the  ephemeral  word-play 
"escoted,"  is  but  fair  game  for 
laughter  as  the  lean  and  wrinkled 
nonsense    of    despairing    pedantry. 

No  contemporary  English  dic- 
tionary giv<  ■  "  I  have  ex- 
amined    every     English     and     every 


English-foreign  dictionary  (and 
every  extant  edition  of  each)  pub- 
lished from  the  beginning  of  the 
language  up  to  Samuel  Johnson's 
English  Dictionary  (1755).  (For 
list,  but  giving  first  editions  only, 
see  li.  P..  Wheatley,  Chronological 
Notices  of  Dictionaries  of  the  Eng- 
lish Language,  in  Transactions  of 
the  Philological  Society,  London, 
1865.)  The  word  is  in  none  of 
them  till  Johnson,  where  the  mean- 
ing was  assumed  that  has  been  fol- 
lower! to  the  present. 

An  indefinite  number  of  exam- 
ples of  "cote,"  "coat,"  meaning 
dress,  apparel,  or  to  dress.  &c.  can 
easily  be  collected  by  any  one  from 
Chaucer's  "medlee  cote"  (see  also 
picture  in  Egerton  MS.)  to  a  period 
much  later  than  Shakespeare.  Two 
from  contemporary  authors  suffice 
here. 

"Scarce  will  their  Studies  stipend 
them,  their  wiues,  and  Children 
cote." — William  Warner,  Albion's 
England  (revised  ed.  1602),  238. 
Not  in  the  earlier  (15S9)  edition. 
This  example  is  interesting  not  only 
as  contemporary  to  the  year,  but 
also  as  juxtaposing  the  common  no- 
tions of  maintenance  and  apparel- 
ing as   in   Hamlet. 

"After  they  four  first  parents] 
got  coates  to  their  backes.  they 
were  turned  out  of  doores.  Put  on 
therefore  either  no  apparel  at  all, 
or  put  it  on  carelesslv." — Tho  Pek- 
ker.  The  Culs  Home-Book  (1609), 
in    op.    cit..    II,    220. 

Shakespeare  seems  the  only  one 
who  ever  used  the  word  "e<oote" 
prior  to  Johnson's  learned  blunder 
of  17.">.">: — sufficient  index  of  it 
cial  coinage.  It  originated  and  died 
with    the  'ts   components 

are  "cote"  (coat")  with  a  sliding 
prefix  ex-  (es-).  Puns  however  do 
not  come  into  existence  through 
lawful  etymologic  unions  but  de- 
spite them.  They  are  the  begotten 
waifs  of  occasion. 


180  CHILDREN  OF  THE  CHAPEL  AT  BLACKFRIARS 

himself  by  leaving  with  the  audience  the  satisfied  sense  of  dis- 
covering the  meaning  themselves,  he  turns  aside  and  proceeds 
to  blame  the  poets  who  write  for  the  Children  for  making  them 
utter  jibes  against  the  public  theatres,  to  which  they  must  ulti- 
mately succeed.  For  upon  the  general  knowledge  that  the 
primary  function  of  singing  is  the  basic  consideration  of  their  im- 
pressment and  maintenance  while  their  acting  is  simply  a  conse- 
quence that  must  be  conterminal  with  the  cause,  it  is  warrantably 
assumed  that  these  Chapel  Boys  will  be  continued  at  the  theatre 
as  actors  only  so  long  as  they  can  sing.1  If  then  they  keep  on  act- 
ing until  their  voices  at  puberty  begin  to  break  and  unfit  them 
for  choir-singing  and  taking  part  in  the  varied  sort  of  entertain- 
ment they  now  furnish  at  Blackfriars,  they  will  at  the  time  of 
voice-change  be  deprived  of  their  present  superior  position;  and 
not  being  gentlemen's  sons  but  lads  who  have  no  better  means 
than  their  own  resources  for  support,2  it  is  like-most  that  they 
themselves,  despite  their  present  raillery,  will  then  have  to  seek 
employment  as  a  means  of  livelihood  among  these  same  "com- 
mon players"  their  poets  now  make  them  cry  down.3 

But  the  contest  has  not  been  one-sided.  With  a  glance  at  the 
more  general  conditions  in  which  there  has  been  "much  to-do  on 
both  sides,"  Shakespeare  having  made  Hamlet  apparently  talk 
away  from  the  question  raised  as  to  maintenance  and  appareling 
of  the  lads,  now  purposely  causes  Rosencranz  to  avoid  directly 
answering  it,  but  nevertheless  reenforces  the  answer  in  the  minds 
of  the  audience  by  shifting,  after  all,  the  blame  from  the  poets  to 
the  "nation"  for  allowing  and  encouraging  the  present  state  of 
affairs.  For  a  while  the  controversy  was  so  hot  that  plays  were 
purchased  by  neither  side  unless4  the  poet  took  the  part  of  the 

1See  supra,  115.  grown-up    children    of    Blackfriars 

2  Shakespeare   by  his   "as   is   like  and    Whitefriars   are   found   among 

most  if  their  meanes  are  no  better"  the  leaders  in  every  men's  company 

{1623  folio)   understands  that  these  but    one,    and    practically    dominate 

are  not  gentlemen's  children.     Clif-  the  stage  during  that  later  period, 

ton's    boy,    who    never    acted,    was  *  "There    was     for    a    while    no 

probably  the  only  one  of  rank  taken  money  bid  for  argument  unless"  &c. 

up.     See  also  supra,  80s,  824.  This    is    as    clear    a    declaration    as 

'Shakespeare  prophesied  soundly  one    need    make    that    the    personal 

here.    This  is  exactly  what  did  hap-  was    subordinate    to    the    theatrical 

pen  later,  as  the  history  from  1610  quarrel  and  came  before  the  public 

to  the  Restoration,  taken  up  in  sue-  .solely  through  demands  of  the  lat- 

ceeding      chapters,       shows.       The  ter.     Cf.  supra,  158*,  169-72. 


THE  HAMLET  PASSAGE  181 

players  he  wrote  for  and  jibed  at  their  opposition  poets  and  play- 
ers,1 as  notably  in  Jonson's  Poetaster  (ca.  April,  1601)  at  Black- 
friars  and  Dekker's  Satirumastix  (summer,  1601)  at  the  Globe 
and  Paul's. 

Although  there  is  a  law  (Elizabeth  1559) 2  which  absolutely 
forbids  any  allusion  or  criticism  by  the  stage  with  reference  to 
affairs  of  state  and  religion,  "the  nation  holds  it  no  sin"  even 
thus  to  countenance  and  set  on  such  a  controversy  as  the  present 
one.3 

It  is  a  condition  of  affairs  much  to  be  deplored,  and  "in  a  well- 
governed  state"4  seems  hardly  "possible."5 

Where  the  blame  rests  for  this  "throwing  about  of  brains"  and 
for  the  whole  unsatisfactory  theatrical  status  is  thus  shadowed 
forth  with  such  consummate  skill  that  the  audience,  familiar  with 
the  circumstances,  could  not  miss  the  chief  cause  of  grievance, 
though  no  breach  of  open  declaration  is  made. 

The  conclusion  as  to  whether  the  boys  win  or  not  is  a  pregnant 
summary  of  conditions  in  a  single  line.  Rosencranz  puns  on 
"carry  it  away,"  and  says  that  they  not  only  have  won  but  they 
have  carried  off  the  chief  audience  and  income  of  the  Globe. — 

'"Unless  the  poet  and  the  player  Also  in  New  Shakespeare  Society 
went  to  cuffs  [Fi,  "Cuffs"]  in  the  Transactions  (1880-85),  Appendix 
question."  "Cuffs"  was  a  common  to  Part  II,  19t. 
nickname  for  a  schoolmaster  be-  For  punishments  inflicted  on  the 
cause  of  his  bad  habit.  "To  go  to  Rose  in  1597  and  the  Curtain  early 
cuffs"  about  anything  therefore  1601,  doubtless  under  the  interpre- 
came  to  have  a  quadruple  signifi-  tation  of  this  law,  see  supra,  155, 158. 
cation, — primarily  "to  cuff  or  fight,"  It  seems  remarkable  that  Shake- 
then  "to  go  to  a  master  who  cuffs,"  speare  was  permitted  so  much  as 
"to  go  to  school,"  and  "to  study,  the  present  deft  passage  in  Hamlet 
study  up,  study  how,  find  ways  and  against  the  same  law.  See  supra, 
means."  164. 

Shakespeare  plays   with   the   pun-  8Tschischwitz     (quoted     in     Fur- 

ning  nature  of  the  expression,  with  ness.   Variorum   Shakespeare,   Ilam- 

the    final    sense    of    course    resting  let,  I,  167)  could  not  see  the  "logic" 

upon  the  last  of  the  quartet.  of  332-37,  as  they  stand. — for  a  very 

Compare  the  following  from  good  reason!  But  really  was  ever 
Satiromostix  (summer,  1601,  ed.  a  cause  that  required  the  most  del- 
Hawkins,  op.  cit..  Ill,  135)  : — "He  icate  handling  presented  to  the 
[Horace-Jonsonl  has  as  desperate  minds  of  the  audience  with  more 
a  wit  as  any  scholar  ever  went  to  consummate  "logic"  ? 
cuffs  for"  f=  went  to  school  for,  'Order  of  the  Privy  Council.  22 
acquired  bv  study],  June,   L600,  w.  s.t  151\ 

'Printed  in  J.   P.  Collier,  op.  cit.,  'Hamlet,  u.  s..   174.  !•",,  1 
I     (18311),     168-69;     (1879'),     1661. 


182  CHILDREN  OF  THE  CHAPEL  AT  BLACKFRIARS 

for  which  "Hercules  and  his  load,"  the  sign  of  the  theatre,  stands.1 
That  is,  of  course,  they  have  attracted  away  the  better  paying 
and  more  genteel  class. 

In  the  next  speech,  the  fickle  fawning  of  a  public  after  the 
fashion  of  royalty  without  regard  to  the  justness  of  the  cause  it 
represents  is  made  the  common  basis  upon  which  Shakespeare 
rises  from  the  consideration  of  local  theatrical  conditions  to  the 
fuller  swing  of  physical  and  psychic  difficulties  that  beset  Hamlet 
in  the  tragic  execution  of  the  high  purpose  laid  upon  him. 

Thus  ends  this  valuable  record  touching  the  Children  of  the 
Chapel  at  Blackfriars.  Seen  in  its  proper  relation  to  their  history- 
it  becomes  also  contributive  to  certain  Hamlet  problems,  which 
cannot  be  taken  up  here.  I  am  however  compelled  to  take  notice 
of  one  item  which  further  connects  with  this  history. 

The  1603  quarto,2  admitted  on  both  sides  of  a  long  contro- 
versy3 to  be  at  least  maimed  and  mutilated,  contains  no  reference 
to  the  innovation  and  inhibition,  but  does  give  in  four  lines  a  gen- 
eral summarized  sense  of  the  twenty  lines  (325-345)  found  first 
in  the  1623  folio. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  second  quarto  (1604)4  omits  these 
twenty  lines,  but  gives  the  rest  of  the  passage  as  a  practical  iden- 
tity with  the  same  in  the  1623  folio.5     This  omission  in  Q2  is 

Calorie,  op.   cit.,  Ill,  67,  thinks  ers  on  the  other  side  (that  the  play 

the  sign  of  the  Globe  was  painted  was    completed    before    printed    or 

on    the    river-side    wall, — "a    figure  played),  quoted  in  H.  H.  Furness, 

of   Hercules    supporting  the   Globe,  Shakespeare       Variorum,      Hamlet 

under    which    was    written     Totus  (1877),  II,  14-33. 

mundus  agit  histrionem."     I  do  not  The    controversy    still    continues 

know  his  authority.  in     recent    books     and    periodicals. 

'The    I    Tragicall    Historie   of    |  See  infra,  1841. 

Hamlet  |  Prince  of  Denmarke  |  By  4The    |    Tragicall    Historie    of    | 

William  Shake-speare.|     As  it  hath  Hamlet,  |  Prince  of  Denmarke.  |  By 

beene    diuerse    times    acted    by    his  William  Shakespeare.     |  Newly  im- 

Highnesse    ser-|uants    in   the    Cittie  printed   and  enlarged  to   almost  as 

of    London :    as    also    in    the    two  much  |   againe  as  it  was,  according 

V-|niuersities     of     Cambridge    and  to  the  true  and  perfect  |   Coppie.   \ 

Oxford,  and  else-where|    [vignette]  [vignette]    At  London,|    Printed  by 

At  London   printed   for  N.   L.   and  I.  R.  for  N.  L.  and  are  to  be  sold 

John   Trundell.|    1603  :| — Title-page,  at  his    |    shoppe  vnder   Saint  Dun- 

1603  quarto.  stons  Church  in  |  Fleetstreet.  1604.  | 

"See     discussions     by     Caldecott,  — Title-page,  1604  quarto. 

Knight,      Delius,      Staunton,     Elze,  'The    only    difference    is    in    the 

Dyce,   and  others   on   the   one   side  transposition    of    "they"    and    "are" 

(that  Qi  is  a  first  conception,  later  in  line  324.     See  note  on  Fi,  supra, 

reworked),     and      Collier,     Tycho  174. 
Mommsen,   Grant  White,   and   oth- 


THE  HAMLET  PASSAGE  1»3 

made  in  the  face  of  the  statement  on  the  title-page  that  the  edi- 
tion is  "enlarged  to  almost  as  much  againe  as  it  was,  according 
to  the  true  and  perfect  Coppie." 

Without  entering  into  argument,  I  must,  though  anticipating 
a  date  by  two  years,  simply  state  the  significance  of  these  facts.1 

When  James  I  came  to  the  throne,  the  royal  maintenance  and 
appareling  of  the  Blackfriars  Boys  ceased.  In  January,  1604, 
they  were  put  on  an  exact  level  with  the  public  theatres.  The 
cause  of  grievance  to  the  public  theatres  being  thus  removed,  the 
continuance  of  Shakespeare's  attack  thereafter  would  have  been 
pointless  and  absurd, — an  attack  upon  a  mere  historical  foe. 
Hence  it  was  omitted  from  the  1604  edition. — Which  incidentally 
indicates  that  that  edition  was,  as  it  claimed  to  be,  printed  from 
"the  true  and  perfect  copy"  as  Shakespeare  and  his  company  then 
wished  it.  It  was  likewise  omitted  from  Q3  (1605),  Q4  (1611), 
Q6  (undated,  but  after  161 1),  and  was  never  printed  until  the 
1623  folio,  which  aims  to  preserve  to  literature  and  history  the 
plays  of  Shakespeare  from  their  most  authentic  source.  I  have 
no  doubt  that  the  1623  folio  text  was  from  the  original  manu- 
script containing  minor  changes  made  from  time  to  time  for  the 
stage.  This  passage  containing  the  attack,  crossed  out  and  not 
acted  after  the  death  of  Elizabeth,  was  restored  in  the  folios  as  a 
part  of  the  original  play. 

In  the  1604  and  later  quartos,  just  enough  of  the  original  mat- 
ter is  retained  to  make  the  transition  from  the  necessary  talk 
about  the  players  to  the  matters  of  dramatic  concern  expressed 
in  Hamlet's,  "It  is  not  very  strange"  &c.  It  is  clear  that  the  part 
retained  was  kept  solely  for  this  transitional  step.2 

We  no  longer  need  to  rely  upon  the  four-line  summary  in  the 
1603  quarto  as  sole  proof  that  the  complete  passage  (315-345) 
was  in  the  play  as  originally  acted ;  for,  as  seen,  the  passage  in  its 

'The  matter  is  taken  up  fully  in  p.    129,   Dr.   Tanger  has  as   clear  a 

proper     chronological     order,     com-  statement   as   can    well   be   made  on 

plete  work,  vol.  I,  chap.  XV I.  the    awkward    gap    caused    by    the 

2See    Dr.    Gustav    Tanger,    The  omission      (325-45).      His     conclu- 

First   and   Second   Quartos   and   the  sion,    however,    that    this    part    was 

First  Folio  of  Hamlet  (  \rezv  Shake-  left    OUt    by    accident    is    an    unfor- 

speare    Society    Publications,    Series  tnnatc  guess. 
I,  Nos.  s  and  9,   1880),  109-97.     On 


184 


CHILDREN  OF  THE  CHAPEL  AT  BLACKFRIARS 


entirety  fits  the  facts  of  no  other  period  than  at  the  close  of  1601 
and  opening  of  1602.1 

No  farther  documents  touching  the  status  or  popularity  of  the 
Children  of  the  Chapel  at  Blackfriars  are  known.  The  evidences 
adduced  give  us  the  "gelegenheit"  or  state  of  affairs  through  a 
brilliant  career  from  1597  to  September  18,  1602.  We  know  from 
subsequent  events  that  the  same  condition  continued  to  the  close 
of  Elizabeth's  reign, — March  24,   1603.     What  occurred  there- 


^he  facts  on  the  above  Hamlet 
passage  are  established  on  a  purely 
historical  basis  with  reference  to 
the  Children  of  the  Chapel  as  act- 
ors at  Blackfriars. — Which  has  hith- 
erto not  been  possible.  The  larger 
significance  to  certain  Hamlet  prob- 
lems must  be  taken  up  elsewhere. 
I  add  here  only  a  word. 

The  certainty  that  this  impor- 
tant passage  was  written  and  acted 
in  its  entirety  in  late  1601  to  early 
1602  is  established.  (See  supra, 
174-751).  The  logical  acceptance  of 
it  as  a  representative  example  of 
"the  true  and  perfect  copy"  as  orig- 
inally written  and  acted  is  unavoid- 
able;— just  as  in  similar  cases  in 
certain  other  Shakespearean  and 
contemporary  plays.  It  stands 
thus  for  the  first  time  as  an  incon- 
trovertible fact  among  the  proofs 
that  Shakespeare  wrote  Hamlet  in 
1601  just  as  he  wrote  his  other 
great  dramas  before  and  after, — 
once  and  for  all.  The  later  stage- 
changes  are  unimportant.  It  is  cor- 
respondingly disproof  of  the  theory, 
comfortable  to  some,  that  between 
the  quartos  of  1603  and  1604  Shake- 
speare's mind  and  art  underwent  a 
century-long  Homeric  development. 
(See  commentators  cited  supra, 
1823.  Also,  among  later  theorists, 
see  J.  Schick,  Die  Entstehung  des 
Hamlet.  Festvortrag,  gehalten  auf 
der  General  -  Versammlung  der 
Deutschen  Shakespeare-Gcsellschaft 
am  23.  April  1902;  in  Shakespeare- 
Jahrbuch,  1902,  XXXVIII,  xiii- 
xlviii.) 

With  the  play  in  final  form  in 
1601,  there  is  no  longer  need  of 
supposing,    with    some,    an    earlier 


form,  or  with  others  an  intermedi- 
ate form,  from  which  the  pirated 
1603  quarto  and  Der  Bestrafte  Bru- 
dermord  were  derived,  nor  with 
others  that  the  latter  is  derived 
from  the  former.  (See  W.  Crei- 
zenach,  Der  Bestrafte  Brudermord 
and  its  Relations  to  Shakespeare's 
Hamlet,  in  Modern  Philology  (1904- 
5),  II,  249-60.  This  is  in  the  main 
a  defense  of  the  author's  views  on 
the  same  subject  in  Berichte  der 
philol.-histor.  Classe  der  Konigl. 
Sachs.  Gesellschaft  der  Wissen- 
schaften,  1887,  Iff.,  and  in  Schau- 
spiele  der  Englischen  Komodianten 
in  Kurschner's  Deutsche  National- 
Litteratur,  1889,  XXIII.  At  the 
same  time  it  is  an  answer  to  the 
review  of  Creizenach's  views  by  Dr. 
Gustav  Tanger,  Der  Bestrafte  Bru- 
dermord oder  Prinz  Hamlet  aus 
Ddnnemark  und  sein  Verhaltniss  su 
Shakespeare's  Hamlet,  in  Shake- 
speare-Jahrbuch,  1888,  XXIII,  224ff. 
To  Creizenach's  article  in  Modern 
Philology,  u.  s.,  M.  B.  Evans,  "Der 
Bestrafte  Brudermord"  and  Shake- 
speare's "Hamlet,"  in  eod.,  433-49, 
makes  reply.  This  is  mainly  a  de- 
fense of  Evans's  Der  Bestrafte  Bru- 
dermord sein  Verhaltniss  su  Shake- 
speare's Hamlet.  Diss.  Bonn, 
1902.) 

Both  versions  were  written  from 
the  original  play  as  presented  on 
the  Globe  stage  from  ca.  late  1601 
to  early  1602  on.  Who  wrote  them 
and  why  they  have  certain  simi- 
larities and  differences  requires  in- 
vestigation on  wholly  new  lines 
that  are  not  bounded  by  the  defense 
of  theories.  Known  facts  concern- 
ing certain  actors  long  in  Germany 


THE  HAMLET  PASSAGE  185 

after,  with  its  larger  significance  to  the  drama  and  stage,  is  the 
subject  of  following  chapters. 

and    but    recently    in    the    Burbage-  on  a  matter  of  mere  history  can  be 

Shakespeare    company    may    be    of  established,    conclusions    based    on 

use  in  a  first  research  for  external  theory  were  better  unexpressed. 
data.      But    unless    historical    facts 


SUBJECT  INDEX 


[This  analytical  index  of  chief  subjects,  supplemented  by  cross-refer- 
ences in  the  foot-notes,  may  serve  for  most  purposes  in  lieu  of  the  more 
severely  scientific  index  rcrum  et  nominum  el  titulorum,  which  is  too  ex- 
tensive to  be  practicable  in  this  introductory  volume.] 


Accommodations  for  comfort  of  au- 
diences, 8,  34-35,  35\  50-.".  1,  5l\  52. 

Actors,  Children  of  the  Chapel  as, 
1,  4,  5,  11,  13,  16,  18,  40,  41,  53,  54, 
561,  58,  592-62,  65,  66,  68-701,  70- 
72,  73-76,  77-83,  92,  105,  106-7, 
113,  115,  127,  141,  150,  151,  163, 
165%  166,  174,  176-82,  183;  devel- 
oped by  children-companies,  13- 
14,  ISO3;  irresponsibieness  of  chil- 
dren, 15 ;  hindered  by  stage-pa- 
trons, 44,  46,  142,  143-46 ;  view  of, 
on  Blackfriars  and  modern  stage, 
473;  number  of,  at  Blackfriars, 
74-76,  127;  names  of,  at  Black- 
friars, 76,  80l,  1325,  163,  1652,  1771 ; 
impressment  of  boys  as,  17,  53,  57, 
60-681,  70,  71,  73-74,  77-83,  99, 
101,  102,  114,  127,  152;  contract 
for  employment  of  boys  as,  at 
Blackfriars,  803;  not  "gentlemen's 
children"  at  Blackfriars,  82,  180=; 
English,  in  Germany,  110-12,  128; 
art  of  Elizabethan-Jacobean  and 
modern,  1345 ;  law  against  stroll- 
ing, 150,  1523,  1733;  relations  of, 
at  Blackfriars  and  other  theatres, 
163-72;  strolling  or  traveling  of, 
caused  by  Blackfriars,  1753-76 ; 
Fletcher's,  patronized  by  James 
VI  of  Scotland,  175"-76 ;  superi- 
ority of,  at  Blackfriars,  176-77*. 
See  Blackfriars,  Children,  Eliza- 
beth, Theatre. 

Admission  price,  at  Blackfriars,  36, 
112,  177;  comparative  view  of,  6, 
112*. 

Alleyn,  Edward,  Fortune  contract 
by,  72-8;  on  cost  of  Fortune,  29'. 

All  Fools.     See  Chapman. 

Allusions,  local.     See  Plays. 

Antimasque.     See   Masque. 

Antonio  and  Mellida.    See  Marston. 

Antonio's  Revenge.    See  Marston. 


Apologctical  Dialogue.    See  Jonson. 

Apparel.     See   Stage-apparel. 

Archives  and  original  documents, 
xii,  xiv-xv. 

Art  of  Elizabethan-Jacobean  and 
modern   acting,   1345. 

Articles  of  agreement,  by  Black- 
friars managers,  85,  87-91,  102; 
date  of,  85,  87a,  88-91 ;  200  /.  bond 
as  security  in,  88,  922;  lawsuits 
concerning,  89-91 ;  terms  of,  in 
200/.  bond,  91-92".     See  Bond. 

Artificial  lighting  of  Blackfriars, 
106-7,   124. 

Assignment  of  Blackfriars  lease  by 
Evans  to  Hawkins,  purpose  of, 
85-86,  93;  date  of,  89-91;  not  in 
trust,  89*. 

Attitude  of  Elizabeth  toward  thea- 
tres, results  of,  155,  156-57,  158, 
159,   163-72,   175-82. 

Audiences,  relative  position  of,  to 
stage,  ix,  50-plat-51.  52;  -elect,  at 
Blackfriars,  6,  7,  8,  35-:;r,.  | 
18*,  51,  52,  71,  B2  B3,  95,  96,  '.»7, 
106-7.  1  L2,  L19,  L24,  L28,  I  I  ! 
157,  164-60.  175-77,  1M  B2;  pro- 
visions for  comfort  of,  S,  34-35, 
35\  50-plat-51,  511,  52;  Hamlet  on 
losses  of  genteel,  to  Blackfriars, 
164,  175-77,  181-82;  Poetaster  on, 
165-66;  Cynthia's  Revels  on,  i  * "» •■  > ; 
Satiromastix  on,  166;  Case  is 
Altered  on,  176\ 

Balcony  of  Blackfriar-.  18,  :.0-plat- 
*'i  ;  use  of,  for  musicians,  18  .  50- 
plat-.".  1 . 

Bear  Garden.  Thomas  Platter  on, 
72-8;  date  of,  9";  architecture  of. 
18*;  cost  of,  30;  structure  and  fin- 
ishing of.  :::.•'  ;   location  of,    153*. 

Bestrafte  Brudennord,  Der,  rela- 
tions of,  to  Hamlet.   L84*. 


188 


CHILDREN  OF  THE  CHAPEL  AT  BLACKFRIARS 


Biron.    See  Byron. 

Blackfriars  monastery,  history  of, 
18-20;  dissolution  and  value  of, 
20. 

Blackfriars  precinct,  petition  of  in- 
habitants of,  175,  27,  53\  128",  152, 
154" ;  boundaries  of,  19-20 ;  a 
sanctuary  inviolate,  20;  liberties 
and  privileges  of,  City  and 
Crown's  contention  over,  20-211, 
53,  54,  152-54,  156,  159,  160,  1611- 
62 ;  buildings  of,  21 ;  granted  to 
Cawarden,  22;  changes  in,  by 
Cawarden,  23 ;  aristocracy  of,  23, 
26-28,  38,  96,  152;  property  of 
Shakespeare  in,  261,  27,  28;  poorer 
inhabitants  of,  27 ;  on  history  of, 
1541 ;  suppression  of  Rossiter's 
theatre  in,  1542,  16l\  1612-62.  See 
Blackfriars  theatre,  City,  Eliza- 
beth. 

Blackfriars  theatre,  historical  im- 
portance of,  ix,  6,  18,  151,  163; 
as  a  model,  ix,  8-9,  183,  35,  36',  362, 
393,  438,  141,  151,  163;  size  of,  ix, 
7,  28,  35,  36,  38-39,  43e,  46,  493, 
50-plat-51,  1283;  structural  details 
of,  ix,  37-54;  plat  of,  ix,  50-51; 
new  documents  concerning,  ix-x, 
10s,  364,  39\  402,  414,  42,  4410,  45\ 
48\  485,  492,  56\  57,  60-62,  803, 
841,  844,  87s,  875,  897,  95,  106-72, 
1235,  1254,  1283,  1581;  Elizabeth's 
relations  to,  x,  xii,  54,  94,  99,  101, 
105,  126-29,  148-62;  maintenance 
of  Children  of  the  Chapel  at,  x, 
4,  40,  71,  73-76,  91~92,  95,  98-104, 
105,  106-7,  126,  127,  128-29,  178- 
82;  the  Queen  attends,  x,  1,  26, 
51,  71,  87,  95-97,  99,  112,  115,  125, 
128,  160 ;  relations  of,  to  other  the- 
atres, poets,  and  players,  x-xi,  xii, 
133,  140,  158,  165-662,  167,  168, 
169-72,  178-81;  and  the  "stage- 
quarrel,"  x-xi,  xii,  133,  140,  158, 
165-662,  168,  169-72,  178-81;  sit- 
ting on  the  stage,  as  a  custom  at, 
xi,  7,  42-43,  44,  45,  46,  47,  481, 
50-plat-51,52,  124,  130-47  ;  Queen's 
requirements  for  training  Children 
in  various  arts  at,  xi,  4-5,  9-11, 
40,  56,  593-60,  71,  74,  80\  105-25, 
127,  163,  180;  singing  at,  xi,  4,  5, 
9,  71,  80\  106-7,  113-144,  115,  117, 
121-22,  163,  180 ;  instrumental  mu- 
sic at,  xi,  4,  5,  9,  10,  11,  71,  106^7, 


113,  114,  115,  116-18,  121,  122,  163; 
dancing  at,  xi,  5,  44,  71,  118,  163 ; 
masque  at,  xi,  xii,  5,  104,  44,  113, 

114,  119-21,  122-24,  163,  167; 
Children  of  the  Chapel  as  act- 
ors at,  1,  4,  5,  13,  16,  18,  40, 
41,  53,  54,  561,  58,  592-62,  65,  66, 
70-72,  73-76,  801,  82,  83,  85,  86, 
87-94,  95,  96,  103,  106-7,  112,  113, 

115,  1171,  121,  123,  126-29,  1325, 
141,  150,  151,  163,  1652,  166,  174, 
176-82,  183 ;  Children  of  the  Rev- 
els to  the  Queen  at,  1,  13,  15,  4410, 
74,  803,  163,  1772,  183;  audiences 
of,  select,  6,  7,  8,  35-36,  43,  45, 
483,  51,  52,  71,  82-83,  95,  96,  97, 
106-7,  112,  119,  124,  128,  142,  155, 
157,  164-66,  175-77,  181-82;  boxes 
or  lords'  rooms  at,  6,  415-43,  49, 
50-plat-51,  124,  1401,  141;  earliest 
companies  at,  6,  21-22,  23-24,  423; 
seats  at,  6,  492,  50-plat-51,  52 ;  gal- 
leries at,  6,  414-43,  46,  50-plat-51, 
124;  as  foremost  theatre,  6,  18, 
163 ;  remodeled  from  Priory 
house,  7,  17,  35,  36,  38,  39~54, 
152 ;  "Great  Hall"  or  auditorium 
of,  7,  36,  37,  38,  39,  40,  41,  43,  49, 
74;   a  social  centre   for  the  elite, 

7,  35-36,  43,  45,  483,  51,  95-97,  161; 
influence  of,  on  theatre-structures, 
8-9,  183,  35,  36,  393,  43e,  141;  ac- 
commodations for  comfort  of  au- 
diences in,  8,  34-35,  50-51,  52; 
influence  of,  on  accommodations 
of  the  new  Globe,  8,  35 ;  as  model 
for  Cockpit  and  Salisbury  Court, 

8,  183,  36,  393,  43",  141 ;  date  of,  9\ 
53,  561,  57,  1283;  leased  to  Shake- 
speare and  fellows,  10,  343,  35, 
4410,  451,  561;  orchestra  of,  104- 
11;  practice  of  jests  at,  15,  48s, 
1325,  1334,  163,  1652,  1772 ;  not  a 
"nursery,"  13 ;  opening  of,  by  Ev- 
ans, 16,  53,  561;  leased  to  Evans, 
17,  40,  56\  57-58,  84,  88,  127,  1283; 
purchased  by  Burbage,  17,  35,  36, 
53,  1283;  cost  of,  17,  35;  deed  for, 
17s;  petition  to  Privy  Council 
against,  175,  27,  53\  1283,  152,  1541; 
City's  order  to  suppress,  175,  532, 
1542,  1611 ;  errors  in  history  of,  18- 
18\  24s,  107\  1072-8,  1304-30*; 
present  site  of,  21,  24-28 ;  early  use 
of,  for  Revels  Office  and  plays,  21- 
22,  23-24,  42s;  part  of  royal  grant 


SUBJECT  INDEX 


189 


to  Cawarden,  22 ;  Lyly's  plays  at, 
23-24 ;  aristocratic  environs  of,  23, 
26-28,  38,  96,  132 ;  pretentiousness 
of,  compared  with  other  theatres, 
28-35 ;  annual  rental  of,  301,  45\ 
57,  178  ;  superior  accommodations 
of,  35-36,  51;  Clifton's  Complaint 
against,  30,  70,  71,  73-74,  77-83, 
84-87",  100,  101,  102,  113-14',  115, 
126,  1283,  159,  160,  180;  stage  at, 
36,  42\  43-47,  48,  49',  50-plat-51, 
52,  5.".,  12  1.  L379,  141-42;  materials 
of,  37,  407 ;  "the  Scholehouse"  of, 
40,  71,  74,  127 ;  rooms  above  the 
"Great  Hall"  of,  40-41,  and  their 
use,  41,  74,  1283;  resemblance  of, 
to  Freiburg  Stadttheater,  42';  tir- 
ing-house of,  47,  48",  50-plat-51 ; 
plat    of,    47,    50-51" ;    capacity    of, 

47,  49,  50-plat-51,  52;  balcony  of, 

48,  50-plat~51 ;  place  for  musi- 
cians in,  48%  50-plat-51,  137';  un- 
historical  stage  of,  49\  137";  no 
picture  of,  52;  owned  by  Richard 
Burbage,  53,  561 ;  whether  built  to 
supplant  "The  Theatre,"  54,  128s, 
152 ;  provisions  for  rent,  repairs, 
and  expenses  of,  57,  893,  897,  91- 
92,  100,  101-2,  103,  104,  106-7, 
113,  126,  127,  128-29,  173"-74,  175, 
178-79 ;  number  of  plays  per  week 
at,  71,  106-7,  124-25;  plays  at,  75, 
113-25,  165-72;  number  of  actors 
at,  74-76,  127 ;  names  of  actors  at, 
76,  80',  1325,  163,  105J,  1771  ;  con- 
tract for  employment  of  children 
at,  80';  tonduct  of,  official,  81,  83, 
99,  m  1-2,  126-29,  130;  not  gentle- 
men's children  at,  82,  180%  1803 ; 
Star  Chamber  decree  concerning, 
81-83,  87,  88,  93-94,  115,  126,  159; 
assignment  of  lease  of,  by  Evans, 

6 ;  new  management  of,  85, 
86,  87-94,  102,  103-4,  113,  L15; 
and  Hamlet,  86,  1 15,  L29,  L33,  158, 
164,  167,  L68,  173-85;  Queen  Hen- 
rietta attends,  Vf\  status  of  Chil- 
dren at,  L05  25;  Duke  of  Stettin's 
Diary  on,  L06-7,  L08-25,  128;  ar- 
tificial lighting  of,  L06-7,  i:i: 
popularization  and  musical  in- 
fluence of  concerts  at,  i  it1,  121 ; 
days  of  week  for  acting  at,  125; 
imitation  of  customs  of,  L30,  L36, 
141-47,  163;  imitation  of  plays 
and    playwrights    of,     166  88;    no 


suppressive  order  against,  14'j'-50, 
153;  alliance  of  City  and  theatre 
against,  151,  153-55,  156—57,  158- 
02,  108 ;  protected  by  Queen's  the- 
atrical orders,  153,  1611,  175-70; 
results  of  Queen's  attitude  toward, 
155,  L57,  L58,  159,  102,  104-66, 
175-70 ;  temporary  restraint  of, 
158';  as  a  "public"  theatre,  L61  , 
relations  of,  to  theatres,  poets, 
and  players,  103-72,  178-81;  list 
of  dramatists  for,  103J;  plays  of, 
with  local  allusions,  104-72;  pat- 
ronage drawn  to,  from  public  the- 
atres, 104-00,  170,  181-82;  as 
cause  of  public  theatre  companies 
having  to  travel,  175' ;  reduced  by 
James  1  to  public-theatre  level, 
183.  See  Children,  Clifton,  Duke, 
Elizabeth,  Evans,  Gyles,  James, 
Plays,  Shakespeare,  Sitting  on  the 
stage,  Stage,  Stage-quarrel,  The- 
atre, &c. 

Bond,  for  400  /.,  as  security  to  Bur- 
bage for  rent  of  Blackfriars  57, 
851 ;  for  200  /.,  as  security  in  new 
management  of  Blackfriars,  88, 
1)2";  contains  terms  of  agreement. 
897-90,  91-92";  for  50 /.,  for  sal- 
ary, 88,  1023,  125.  See  Articles, 
"Eight  Shillings." 

Boxes,  private,  at  Blackfriars,  6, 
41°-43,  49,  124,  140',  141;  of 
French  theatres,  40,  147 ;  of  pri- 
vate theatres,  141 ;  origin  of  mod- 
ern,  i :.'  .    Hi.  :.o-plat-5l. 

Bugle-blast  at  opening  of  a  play,  ll1. 

Burbage,  James,  purchase  of  Black- 
friars by,  17,  35,  36,  53,  128' ;  con- 
verts Priory  into  theatre,  L7-18, 
152;  alterations  in  Blackfriars 
building  by,  7,  17.  35,  36,  38  {See 
Burbage,  Richard);  death  of,  53; 
purpose  of,  concerning  Blackfriars 
ami   "The    I  lu-atre."   54,    L28',    152. 

Burbage.  Richard,  leases  Blackfriars 
to  Shakespeare  and  fellows,  L0, 
34*,  ::.">.    14  .   leases    Black- 

friars to  Evans,  17,  40, 
84,   88;   alterations   in    Blackfriars 
by   ( See  But  bage,  James  1 .  39  S  i : 

owner  of  1 '.lack  friar-.  53,  .">!">':  dis- 
proves   assignment    of    Blackfriars 

lease  in  trust, 
Burbag  peare  company,  lease 

of  Blackfriars  by,  i".   :i  .  ::.">.  44'°, 


190 


CHILDREN  OF  THE  CHAPEL  AT  BLACKFRIARS 


451,  561;  The  Tempest,  first  piay 
at  Blackfriars  by,  103;  dramatic 
freedom  conduced  to  by,  13,  123; 
profits  of,  at  Blackfriars,  35,  45 ; 
retained  but  restricted  by  Eliza- 
beth, 155,  156 ;  connection  of,  with 
Essex  conspiracy,  157 ;  strolling  or 
traveling  of,  1753;  not  the  com- 
pany patronized  by  James  VI  of 
Scotland,  1753. 
Byron  tragedies.     See   Chapman. 

Campaspe.    See  Lyly. 

Candle-light,  at  Blackfriars,  106-7, 
124. 

Canopy,  48*. 

Capacity,  of  the  Swan  and  Hope, 
30-311,  33,  501;  of  the  Fortune 
and  Globe,  49,  50-plat-51,  52;  of 
Blackfriars,  47,  49,  50-plat-51,  52; 
comparison  of,  in  Elizabethan- 
Jacobean  and  modern  theatres,  50\ 

Case  is  Altered,  The.     See  Jonson. 

Cawarden,  Sir  Thomas,  owner  of 
Blackfriars,  17 ;  royal  grant  of 
Blackfriars  to,  22;  not  first  Mas- 
ter of  the  Revels,  215-22;  uses 
hall  at  Blackfriars  for  play-act- 
ing, 221-222,  423;  makes  changes 
in   Blackfriars  precinct,  23. 

Chapel  Royal,  place  of,  2-3 ;  uses 
of,  2,  3  ;  constitution  of,  2 ;  duties 
of,  2-3 ;  James  I  and  choristers 
of,  in  Scotland,  3 ;  salaries  and 
fees  of,  3,  3*,  4 ;  Nathaniel  Gyles's 
connection  with,  32,  58,  598-62 ;  as 
a  theatre,  41 ;  as  source  of  private 
theatre,  5-6 ;  children  not  to  be 
taken  from,  64.  See  Children, 
Commission,   Elizabeth,   Gyles. 

Chapman,  George,  source  of  an  un- 
known play  by,  xv,  1642;  rank  of, 
12;  as  dramatist  for  children- 
companies,  12 ;  Biron  tragedies, 
indiscretions  of,  15,  1631,  1772-78 ; 
as  writer  of  masques,  121 ;  recip- 
rocal influences  of,  on  Shake- 
speare,  167-68. 

All  Fools,  on  sitting  on  the 

stage,   133-342. 

Gentleman   Usher,  The,  act- 


— —  May  Day,  actors  required  in, 
752;  as  laughing  answer  to  Ham- 
let, 86,  168 ;  evidences  in,  of  sing- 
ing, 1144;  instrumental  music, 
1161;  dancing,  1182;  masque,  120. 
M.  D'Olive,  actors  required 


in,  752 ;  evidences  in,  of  singing, 
114*;  music,  1161;  dancing,  1182; 
character-extension  of  Malvolio 
in,   168. 

Sir    Giles    Goosecap,    actors 


required  in,  75";  evidences  in,  of 
singing,   1144;   music,    1161;   danc- 
ing, 118;  masque,  119;  character- 
extension  of  Dogberry  in,   167. 
Widdowes  Teares,  The,  act- 


ors required  in,  752 ;  evidences  in, 
of  singing,  114* ;  music,  1161; 
dancing,  1182;  masque,  119;  obli- 
gations of,  to  Twelfth  Night,  167- 
68. 


ors  required  in,  752;  satire  of,  on 
Star  Chamber  decree,  82-83,  86- 
87;  date  of,  82,  86,  1144-15,  118\ 
120 ;  evidences  in,  of  singing, 
1144;  music,  1161;  dancing,  118; 
musical  prelude  to,  106-7,  115-16, 
117-18;  masque  in,  120;  elaborate 
costuming  of,  106-7,  124;  obliga- 
tions of,  to  The  Taming  of  the 
Shrew,  168. 

Characteristics  of  children-plays,  9- 
10,  14-15,  113,  114-19,  119-21,  122, 
123-24. 

Characteristics  of  theatres,  private, 
5-7,  183,  35,  43-49,  50-plat-51, 
141-42;  public,  7,  183,  425,  44-49, 
50-plat-51,    52,    137-38. 

Charles  I,  suppresses  custom  of  sit- 
ting on  stage,  1431. 

Charles  II,  grant  of  theatrical  mo- 
nopoly by,   1103,   148. 

Children-companies,  on  history  of, 
vii,  viii,  xii;  publications  on,  vii, 
xii ;  on  editing  plays  of,  vii ;  re- 
lations of,  to  dramatic  and  his- 
trionic art,  vii,  viii,  ix,  xii,   1,  9, 

12,  13,  14-15,  16,  105,  122,  141,  147, 
1803;  under  Elizabeth,  1,  9,  12, 
105;    under  James   I,   1,   5,  9,   12, 

13,  15,  16,  4410-45\  74,  105,  HO2, 
113,  1171,  121,  163,  1772,  183 ;  early, 
at  Blackfriars,  6,  24,  423;  period 
of,  1,  12,  16 ;  imitations  and  echoes 
of,  1,  16,  117\  121,  163;  at  White- 
friars,  1,  6,  13,  14,  15 ;  in  private 
theatres,  7 ;  characteristics  of 
plays  by,  9-10,  14-15,  113,  114-19, 
119-21,  122,  123-24;  period  of,  1, 
12,  16;  proportion  of  plays  by,  12, 
163-64 ;  chief  dramatists  as  poets 


SUBJECT  INDEX 


191 


for,  12-14,  1632;  not  a  "nursery, 
13;  and  dramatic  freedom,  13,  123; 
developed  great  actors,  13-14,  163, 
177',  ISO";  quality  of  dramas  of, 
15,  165. 
Children  of  the  Chapel,  as  choris- 
ters, 1-6,  11,  60-68,  73;  Court- 
service  of  and  its  evolution,  1,  4-5, 
11,  68-70,  71,  73,  74;  secular  uses 
of,  1,  and  origin,  5;  salary  and 
fees  of,  3",  4;  maintenance  of,  3, 
71,  73,  127;  with  James  I  in  Scot- 
land, 3l;  pay  of,  3',  4;  double 
functions  of,  4,  11,  68-70,  71,  73, 
74. 

. ■  as  actors,  1,  4,  5,  11,  13,  16, 

18,   40,   41,   53,   54,    56',    58,   5'.' 
65,  66,  68-701,  70-72,  73-76,  77-83, 
92,    105,    106-7,    113,    115,    127,    141, 
150,  151,  163,  165",  166,  174,  176-82, 
183 ;  Puritanic  opposition  to,  4,  79, 
126,    149,    L50,     L59;    evolution    of 
court-service  of,   5,   11,   68-70,   71, 
73,  74;  court-performances  of,  as 
source  of  private  theatre,  5;  with 
Paul's    Boys    at    Blackfriars,    24. 
Sec    Chapel,    Children    at    Black- 
friars,     Commission,      Elizabeth, 
Evans,  Gyles. 
Children    of   the    Chapel    at    Black- 
friars, maintenance  of,  x,  4,  40,  71, 
73-76,  91-92,  95,  98-104,  105,  106- 
7,      126,      127,      128-29,      178-82; 
Queen's    requirements    for    train- 
ing  of,    in    various    arts,    xi,    4-5, 
9-11,    40,    56,    598-60,    71,    74,    80l, 
105-25,   127,  163,  180;   singing  of, 
xi,    5,    9,    71,    SO1,    106-7,    113-14*. 
115,  121,  163,  ISO;  music  of,  xi,  4, 
5,    9,    10,    11,    71,    106-7,    113,     114. 
115,   116-18,   121,   122,   163;   danc- 
ing   of,    xi,    5,    44,    71,    118,    163^; 
masque  in  plays  of,  xi,  xii,  5,   10*, 
44,    in.    114,    119-21,    122-24,    163, 
167;  period  of,  1,  184-85;  Queen's 
establishment  of,  as   actors,   1,  4, 
5,  13,  16,  18,  40,  41,  53,  54,  561,  58, 
59"-fi2,    65,    66,    70~72,    73-76,    80l, 
82,   83,  85,   86,   87-94,  95,   96,    103, 
106-7,   I  l'-'.   l  L3,   L15,   11T1.   L21,   L23, 
126-29,     1  '•'-'.     ill.     L50,     LSI,    163, 
l. ■,:,-.    166,    L74,    17(1  82,    L83 ;   prec- 
edent^ for  establishment  <>f.  L,  82- 
r,u,  68-70;  source  of.  the  Queen's 
will.   1.  7".  71.   II-'.    1"'(>:  as  source 
of  Revels  children,   I,  74;   imita- 


tions  and   echoes   of,   1,   16,   117  , 
121,  163  ;  evolved  performances  of, 
4-5 ;  the  lost  repertoire  of,  5,  122 ; 
stage-apparel     for,    furnished     by 
the    Queen,    5,    83,    91-92,    99-100, 
101,  106-7,  123,  124,  126,  127,  129, 
178,    183;    comedy-period   of,    fol- 
lowed  by    tragedy,    5,    183;    wide 
influences  of,  12,  13,  14-15,  16,  95 
105,     141,     163,     177',     1S0J;     chief 
dramatists    as    poets    for,    12-14, 
163";  conduced  to  dramatic  free- 
dom, 13,   113,  123;  in  competition 
with  Shakespeare,  14,  15,  174,  175- 
82;    and    offsprings    of,    14,    16^; 
errors   in  history  of,   IS1,  59",  77  , 
177';  boarding  and  lodging  of,  11, 
71     73-76,     103;     Court-perform- 
ances of,  72,  96,  112,   115,  121-221, 
157;  number  of,  as  actors,  74-76, 
127;  plays  of,  7:.,   L13-25,  165-72; 
names   of,   76,   si)1.    1325,   163,   165', 
age    of,    76;    popularity    of, 
803,  85',  94.    L04,    117'-18,   123,   124, 
166,    173-74,     17C-77;     use    of,    as 
actors,  officially  sanctioned,  81,  83, 
99,  101-2,  126-29,  130;  not  gentle- 
men's children,  82,  ISO2,  1801 ;  un- 
der new  management,  85,  SO.  87- 
94   102,  103-4,  113.  115;  and  Ham- 
let, 86,  115,  129,  133,  15S\  164,  167, 
168,    173-85;    status    of,     1" 
Duke  of  Stettin  on,  106-7,  108-25 ; 
model    for   Duke   of   Stettin's   es- 
tablishment,   109-12;    concert-mu- 
sic  popularized   by,    H71.    121;    as 
"the    fashion,"     L23,     L66,    173-74, 
176-77;   reduced  to  public-theatre 
level,  1S3.     See  Blackfriars,  Clif- 
ton, Commission,  Duke,  Elizabeth, 
Evans,     Gyles,     Hamlet,     Music, 
Plays,  Singing. 
Children    of    her    Majesty's     Royal 
Chamber   of  Bristol,  old   men  as, 
U7\ 
Children   of  the   King's    Revels   at 
Whitefriars,  period  of,    i  :   dram- 
atists and  dramas  of,  L4,  L5 ;  con- 
certs by,  1 17\  r.'i ;  value  of  ward- 
robe of,   i> 
Children  of  the  Revels,  three  com- 
panies of,   ' 
Children  of  the  Revels  to  the  Queen 
at  Blackfriars,  p>  riod  of,  i  i 
,d  by   James   I.    L3,    H 
the   Kine..   i.v 


192 


CHILDREN  OF  THE  CHAPEL  AT  BLACKFRIARS 


1772;  placed  on  public-theatre 
level,  74,  183 ;  contract  for  em- 
ployment of,  803. 

Children  of  the  Revels  to  the  Queen 
at  Whitefriars,  period  of,  1,  13, 
16;  managers  of,  as  founders  of 
German  theatre,  1102;  and  Philip 
Rossiter,  1171;  musical  entertain- 
ments by,  1171,  121. 

Children  of  St.  Paul's.  See  Paul's 
Boys. 

Choristers.  See  Chapel,  Children, 
Commission,  Elizabeth. 

Chronology,  of  Blackfriars  plays, 
xi,  xii,  75,  1143-18;  of  events  and 
plays,  in  stage-quarrel,  xi,  xii, 
1692-72.  See  play-titles  under 
Chapman,  Dekker,  Jonson,  Mars- 
ton,  Shakespeare. 

Church,  in  evolution  of  private  the- 
atre, 51.    See  Paul's. 

City  of  London,  contention  of,  with 
Crown,  over  Blackfriars,  x,  xii, 
20-211,  53,  54,  152-54,  156,  159, 
160,  161a-62;  order  of,  to  sup- 
press Blackfriars,  17s,  532,  1*542, 
1611 ;  false  statement  of,  concern- 
ing Privy  Council  order  against 
Blackfriars,  53-54 ;  opposition  of, 
to  Elizabeth's  theatrical  purposes, 
129,  149-62 ;  requests  by,  for  priv- 
ilege   to    suppress    theatres,    149, 

152,  154,  155,  156,  160;  neglects 
execution  of  Queen's  orders,  149, 

153,  154,  155,  156,  16 1\  161l-62; 
methods  of  theatrical  reformation 
by,  150-51,  153 ;  insincerity  of, 
151,  153,  159,  160,  1611-62;  alli- 
ance of,  with  theatres,  against 
Blackfriars,  151,  153-55,  156-57, 
158-62;    political    chess-game    of, 

,  153-54,  160,  1611-62;  suppresses 
Rossiter's  Blackfriars  theatre, 
1542,  1611 ;  connection  of,  with 
Clifton's  Complaint,  159,  160.  See 
Elizabeth,   Reformation. 

Clifton's  Complaint  in  Star  Cham- 
ber, against  Blackfriars,  36,  70, 
71,  73-74,  77-83,  84~873,  100,  101, 
102,  113-144,  115,  126,  1283,  159, 
160,  180;  purpose  of,  73-74,  79, 
82,  126,  159;  date  of.^  772-78,  79, 
84;  historical  unreliability  of,  79, 
80,  100-1,  lOf-2,  113-144,  115,  126, 
1283,  180;  Puritanism  in,  79,  126, 
150,   159  ;   disproof  of  charges  by, 


80s,  113,  1132-144,  115,  180;  decree 
in  favor  of,  81-83,  159;  date  of 
decree  for,  84-873,  159;  furthers 
City's  opposition  to  Elizabeth, 
159,  160;  false  pretenses  of,  159. 
See  Decree,  Elizabeth,  Evans, 
Star  Chamber. 

Cockpit,  the,  modeled  after  Black- 
friars, 8,  183,  36,  393,  43",  141 ;  date 
of,  81,  91;  as  private  theatre,  8, 
1305;  music  at,  104;  size  of,  36, 
393,  436,  141;  stage  of,  43;  sitting 
on  stage  of,  44,  130,  136,  141; 
Queen  Henrietta  attends,  973;  lo- 
cation of,  1532. 

Comfort  in  theatres,  required  and 
provided,  8,  34-35,  35\  50-51,  5l\ 
52. 

Commission  to  take  up  Children,  to 
Edwards,  x,  651;  to  Hunnis,  x, 
65,  662,  70;  to  Nathaniel  Gyles, 
x,  17,  53,  57,  601-62,  65,  66,  68,  70, 
71,  73-74,  77-83,  84,  99,  101,  102, 
113,  114,  126,  127,  152;  precedents 
for,  to  Gyles,  62-70;  interpreta- 
tion of  Gyles's,  in  practice,  70-72, 
73^76,  77-83,  95-97,  106-7,  127, 
152,  155-62,  175;  to  Abingdon, 
621 ;  to  Banester,  622 ;  to  Melyonek, 
623 ;  to  Cornysh,  63 ;  to  Crane, 
63 ;  to  Van  Wilder,  632 ;  to  Bower, 
634,  64;  to  [unnamed],  64;;  to 
Thomas  Gyles,  672;  to  Nathaniel 
Gyles,  at  Windsor,  681.  See 
Blackfriars,  Children,  Elizabeth, 
Gyles. 

"Common."     See   "Public." 

Companies,  theatres,  and  poets,  re- 
lated to  Blackfriars,  x-xi,  xii,  133, 
140,  158,  165-662,  167,  168,  169-72, 
178-81. 

Comparative  view  of  theatre-struc- 
tures, ix,  28-54.  See  Stage,  The- 
atre. 

Concert,  as  musicale  or  "showe," 
exclusive  of  drama,  by  Black- 
friars Boys,  5,  9,  10,  106-7,  113, 
115,  117-18,  121;  Blackfriars  as 
source  of  popularity  of,  1171 ;  in- 
fluence of,  117\  121;  first  collec- 
tions of  music  for,  1171.  See 
Music. 

Concert-music,  first  collections  of, 
and  Blackfriars,   1171. 

Construction.  See  Comparative 
view. 


SUBJECT  INDEX 


193 


Contention    between    Liberality    and 

Prodigality,  114. 
Contention,  of  City  and  Crown, 
over  Blackfriars,  x,  xii,  20-211, 
53,  54,  l.".::  54,  L56,  L59,  1.60,  L611- 
62;  of  City  and  Theatre  against 
Crown,  in  relation  to  Blackfriars, 
x,  129,  149-62,  168. 
Corporation  of  the  City  of  London. 

See  City. 
Court,  Paul's  Boys  at,  4,  24,  07,  157; 
Children  of  the  Chapel  at,  4,  24; 
masques  at,  22,  118-19,  122',  123; 
Children  of  Blackfriars  at,  72,  96, 
112,  115,  121-22',  157;  "showe"  at, 
115,  121;  records  of  Children  of 
Chapel  at,  127  ;  late  Elizabethan 
public-theatre  companies  at,  155; 
no  plays  at,  Christmas,  1601-[2], 
1 59-60. 
Court,  the,  attends  Blackfriars,  95- 

97,  101,  112,  128,  177\ 
Court-entertainments,  rehearsals  for, 
22;    of    Children    at    Blackfriars, 
72,  90,   112,  115,   121-22',   157;   in- 
fluenced    by     Blackfriars     drama, 
123;     omitted,     Christmas,     1001- 
[2],  159-60. 
Court-performances  of  Children   in 
the   Chapel,  as   source  of  private 
theatre,  5-6. 
Court-service    of    Children    of    the 
Chapel,    primary,    1,    4 ;    evolution 
of,  4-5,  11,  68-70,  71,  73,  74. 
Crown.    See  Blackfriars,  City,  Con- 
tention, Elizabeth,  James,  Theatre. 
Cuckqueanes  and  Cuckolds  Errants, 

The.     See   Percy. 
"Cuffs,"   meaning  of,   18l\ 
Curtain  theatre,  the,  Thomas   Plat- 
ter on,   7"-8 ;    date   of,    95 ;    archi- 
tecture    of,     18s;     cost     of,     :h>; 
unhistorical  stage  of,  49',  137";  sit- 
ting on   the  stage  of,   138;  orders 
ilating,     L48  ;     opposition     to, 
149*;     orders     against,     revoked, 
149*-50;     City's    request    to    sup- 
press,   152-53;  orders  to  suppress, 
153,    156,    1'.'.';    location    of    153'; 
restrained  by   Privy  Council,   158, 

181*. 

Customs.    See  Theatrical. 
Cynthia's  Revels.     See  Jonson. 

Dancing,    taught    ami    practiced    at 
Blackfriars,      xi,     4-5,      71,     118; 


within  the  play,  5,  44,  118,  163; 
in  early  German  theatre,  111;  evi- 
dences of,  in  Blackfriars  plays, 
L18*;  'th,  daggering  upsprmg," 
1  r.»".     See  Masque. 

Daniel,   Samuel,  and  John,   117'. 

Dates  of  plays.  See  Chapman, 
Chronology,  Dekker,  Jonson, 
Marston,  Shakespeare. 

D'Avenant-Killigrew  theatrical  mo- 
nopoly, 11,   HO3,   148. 

Davies,  Sir  John,  on  sitting  on  the 
stage,  132' ;  on  sitting  "over"  the 
stage,  135;  on  the  "gull,"  138K-39. 

Day,  John,  The  Isle  of  Guls,  indis- 
cretions of,  15. 

Decree  of  Star  Chamber,  shows 
grants  to  Evans,  56,  71-72,  81-83, 
99;  effect  of,  on  Gyles,  70-71,  S3, 
127;  nature  of,  81-83;  satirized 
by  Chapman,  82-83,  86-87;  effect 
of,  on  Blackfriars,  ^''..  87,  88,  93- 
94,  11'.,  L59;  prohibitive  effect  of, 
"ii  I. vans  only,  83,  87-91,  93~94, 
I"::.  LIS,  L59;  date  of,  84-s7;',  159; 
basis  of,   126,   159. 

Dekker,  Thomas,  new  play  by,  xv, 
iii4J. 

Culs    Home-Book,    The,    on 

lords'  rooms,  43,  ill;  on  sitting 
on  the  stage,  46,  133*,  140%  140*; 
on  the  "gull,"  1401;  on  stage- 
quarrel,    133,    140,    172 

Patient  Crisell.  with   Chettle 


and    Haughton,    plagiarianism    of, 
170. 

Satiromastix,       on       bugle- 


blast,  11';  at  Globe  and  Paul's, 
LI1,  L58,  1*1  ;  on  Jonson  at  Black- 
friars. 4  1'.  L33;  thrusts  Jonson 
and  Blackfriars  Boys,  16S ;  satir- 
izes Poetaster,  L71.  See  Stage- 
quarrel. 

and    Wilkins,    George,   Jests 


to  Make  you  Merry,  on  sitting 
"over"  the  stage,    i 

Devil  is  an  Ass,   The.     See  Jonson. 

De  Witt,  Johannes.    See  Swan. 

Diary.  See  Duke.  Henslowe,  Plat- 
ter. 

Differentiation  of  "public"  and  "pri- 
vate" theatres,  9,   12,   156  57,   L61\ 

Documents,  new.  See  Blackfriars, 
Children,    Globe,    Shakespeare. 

Documents,  original,  and  archives, 
xii,  xiv-xv. 


194 


CHILDREN  OF  THE  CHAPEL  AT  BLACKFRIARS 


Drama,  Elizabeth's  fondness  for,  4, 
70,  113,  150;  private  theatre  as 
factor  in,  51,  12 ;  characteristics  of, 
9-10,  14-15,  113,  114-19,  119-21, 
122,  123-24;  period  of  splendor 
in,  12 ;  shaped  by  conditions,  13- 
14,  113,  123;  losses  in,  14-15,  122, 
163-64,  172 ;  quality  of,  14-15,  165- 
66;  origin  of  new  features  in,  at 
Blackfriars,  122 ;  influences  of,  at 
Blackfriars,  167.  See  Blackfriars, 
Children,  Plays,  Theatre. 

Drama  and  stage,  relations  of  chil- 
dren-companies to,  vii,  viii,  ix,  xii, 
1,  9,  12,  13,  14-15,  16,  105,  122, 
141,   147,   1803. 

Dramatic  freedom,  allowed  at 
Blackfriars  and  Globe,  13-14,  123 ; 
influences  of,  on  dramatic  form, 
113,  123. 

Dramatists,  effect  of  theatrical  con- 
ditions upon,  ix,  12-14,  113,  123; 
relations  of,  at  Blackfriars  and 
other  theatres,  163-72 ;  names  of, 
12-14,  1632. 

Drolls.     See  Kirkman. 

Duke  of  Stettin,  and  retinue,  at 
Blackfriars,  106-7,  124;  at  Globe, 
1081;  at  Fortune,  1091;  at  Bear 
Garden,  109 ;  chief  interest  of,  in 
Blackfriars,  and  establishment  of 
company  after,  109-12,  128. 

Diary,  on  maintenance,  in- 
struction and  performances  of 
Children  at  Blackfriars,  5,  10,  403, 
74,  99,  106-7,  113-25,  126;  on  es- 
tablishment of  Blackfriars,  54,  56, 
G9,  105,  106-7,  126;  on  apparel, 
99,  124 ;  value  and  significance  of, 
105,  107-8;  original  and  transla- 
tion of,  106-7 ;  disproves  Clifton's 
charges,  115. 

Dutch  Courtesan.     See  Marston. 

Eastward  Ho.  See  Marston,  Chap- 
man, Jonson. 

Edward  IV,  Liber  Niger  Domus 
Regis  of,  2 ;  commissions  of,  to 
Abingdon  and  Banester,  62;  uses 
Children  of  Chapel  as  actors,  68. 

Edward  VI,  uses  Blackfriars  for 
Revels  Office,  21 ;  grants  Black- 
friars to  favorites,  22 ;  commission 
by,  to  Van  Wilder,  63;  and  to 
Bower,  63 ;  reappointment  of  of- 
ficers   of,    64 ;    uses    Children    of 


Chapel  as  actors,  69. 

Edwards,  Richard,  commission  to, 
to  take  up  children,  x,  64,  651,  70 ; 
allowances  to,  for  children,  647,  73. 

"Eight  shillings"  item,  the,  as  man- 
ager's salary  to  Evans,  88,  125 ; 
50  /.  bond  as  security  for,  88,  1023, 
125 ;  quoted,  98 ;  significance  of, 
98-100,  102,  104;  determines  day 
of  week  for  acting  at  Blackfriars, 
125 ;  on  official  conduct  of  Black- 
friars,  126. 

Elizabeth,  Queen,  relations  of,  to 
Blackfriars,  x,  xii,  54,  94,  99,  101, 
105,  126-29,  148-62;  maintains 
Children  at  Blackfriars,  x,  4,  40, 
71,  73-76,  91-92,  95,  98-104,  105, 
106-7,  126,  127,  128-29,  178-82; 
commission  by,  to  take  up  chil- 
dren,— to  Nathaniel  Gyles,  x,  17, 
53,  57,  60-62,  65,  66,  68,  70,  71, 
73-74,  77-83,  84,  99,  101,  102,  113, 

114,  126,  127,  152;— to  Edwards, 
x,  64,  651,  70;— to  Hunnis,  x,  65, 
662,  70;  attends  Blackfriars,  x,  1, 
26,  51,  71,  87,  95-97,  99,  112,  115, 
125,  128,  160;  expenditures  by,  at 
Blackfriars,  x,  5,  91-92,  100,  1011, 
103,  104,  126,  127,  128-29,  178; 
contention  of,  against  City,  over 
Blackfriars,  x,  xii,  20-211,  53,  54, 
152-54,  156,  159,  160,  1611~62 ;  re- 
quirements of,  for  training  Chil- 
dren at  Blackfriars,  xi,  4-5,  9-11, 

40,  56,  59-60,  71,  74,  80\  105-25, 
127,  163,  180;  masque  within  play 
originating  under,  xi,  xii,  5,  104, 
44,  114,  119-21,  122-24,  167;  chil- 
dren-companies under,  1,  9,  12, 
105 ;  will  of,  as  source  of  Black- 
friars, 1,  70,  71,  112,  150;  estab- 
lishes Children  of  Chapel  at 
Blackfriars,  1,  4,  5,  13,  16,  18,  40, 

41,  53,  54,  561,  58,  592-62,  65,  66, 
70-72,  73-76,  80\  82,  83,  85,  86, 
87-94,  95,  96,   103,  106-7,   112,  113, 

115,  1171,  121,  123,  126-29,  132°, 
141,  150,  151,  163,  1652,  166,  174, 
176-82,  183;  theatrical  plans  and 
purposes  of,  1,  4,  71,  87,  96,  112, 
113,  125,  127,  128s,  129,  148-62, 
1505,  1512,  152,  154,  157,  159,  175; 
patronizes  Paul's,  l1,  4,  67,  151, 
157 ;  fondness  of,  for  drama,  4, 
70,  113,  150;  early  used  Children 
of  Chapel  as  actors,  4,  70 ;   Puri- 


SUBJECT  INDEX 


195 


tanic  opposition  to,  4,  79,  126,  149, 
150,  159 ;  functional  divisions  of 
Children  of  the  Chapel  by,  4,  71, 
73-70;  stage-apparel  provided  by, 
5,  83,  91-92,  99-100,  101,  10G-7, 
123,  124,  126,  127,  L29,  17-,  L83  ; 
differentiation  of  "public"  and 
"private"  theatres  by,  '■>,  12,  156- 
57,  1611,  176';  entertained  at 
Blackfriars,  20;  death  of,  44,  1(12', 
L83;  orders  of,  against  theatres, 
54,  lis,  int.  i.-,o  •-;,  I-',  L52,  153, 
155,  156,  157-58,  160;  grants  by, 
to  Evans,  for  using  Children  as 
actors,  56,  i  l  72,  Bl  -82,  99,  101, 
L26,  L27;  Latin  patent  by,  to 
Gyles,  as  Master  of  Children,  59*- 
60,  71,  7:5-7-1;  commission  by,  to 
take  up  children, — to  [unnamed], 
64";  — to  Bower,  647 ;  — to  Thomas 
Gyles,  67' ;  interpretation  of  Na- 
thaniel Gyles's  commission  al- 
lowed by,  in  practice,  70  72 
76,  77-83,  95-97,  L06  7,  127,  152, 
155-62,  17."i  ;  theatrical  plans  and 
orders  of,  revoked  by  James  I,  74, 
L49  50,  L611,  L83;  general  pardon 
by,  meaning  of,  77" ;  and  Clifton's 
Complaint,  81-83,  159 ;  attends 
Blackfriars  after  Clifton's  Com- 
plaint, 84*,  87,  96*,  L60,  and  before 
decree,  873 ;  first  sovereign  at  a 
theatre,  973;  "showe"  at  Court  of, 
115,  121-22;  masques  at  Court  of, 
118-19,  122-'.  12:;;  theatrical  pur- 
poses of,  official  acts  by,  and  op- 
position to,  129,  148-62,  L75;  state 
control  of  theatres  begun  by,  148, 
148-62 ;  methods  of  theatrical 
reformation  by,  150*-51*,  152  53, 
154-55;  law  of,  against  .strolling 
players,  L50,  152*,  175* ;  purposes 
of,  for  Globe  and  Fortune,  151, 
L55;  protects  Blackfriars,  153,  l.vi, 
155,  L56-57,  L60-611,  176  ;  results 
of  theatrical  attitude  of,   L55,   156- 

158,  1 59,  163  72,  L75  -82  ;  dis- 
pleasure of,  \\  ith  ( rlobe  company, 
L57,  160;  partisanship  of,  for 
Blackfriars,  censured  by  Shake- 
speare,     L58*,      1 78-8]  ;      law      of, 

nst    criticism    in    stage-plays, 

164,    L76,    181".     See    Blackfriars, 

Chapel,      Children.      Commission, 

.  Evans,  <  >rders,  Privy. 

English  actors,  art  of  Elizabethan- 


Jacobean  and  modern,  1343. 

English  actors  in  Germany,  docu- 
ments on,  110';  first  companies  of, 
110-12;  imitations  of,  110';  throt- 
tled by  monopoly,  110*;  patronage 
of,  modeled  after  London  public 
theatres,  ill;  Duke  of  Stettin's, 
and  Blackfriars,  111,  12s;  music 
and   dancing  of.   111. 

"Erect"  or  "set  up,"  meaning  of, 
128*. 

"Escoted,"  meaning  of,  178-79'. 

conspiracy,  Globe  company's 
connection  with,  L57,  160;  cause 
of  closing  theatres,    L58. 

Establishment  of  Blackfriars.  See 
Actors,  Blackfriars,  Children, 
I  Elizabeth. 

Evans,  Henry,  opens  Blackfriars,  16, 
53,  561;  leases  Blackfriars,  L7,  40, 
561,  57  58,  84,  88,  L27,  L28*;  rent 
by,  for  Blackfriars.  30  ,  15  .  57, 
L78;  suits  at  law  by,  :;<">';  expen- 
ditures by,  at  Blackfriars,  40,  B9T, 
91,  92*,  L26,  129;  boards  and  lodges 
Children.  II,  71,  73-76,  L03;  re- 
sides at  Blackfriars,  41,  L03;  sur- 
renders lea-e  of  Blackfriar 
grants  to,  for  using  Children  as 
actor-.    56,    71  32,    99,    101, 

126,    127;    unites    with    Gyles,    71- 
72,   73-76,   81,    128*,    L52;   as  theat- 
rical   proprietor,    7  7.    s;-^;    im- 
pressment of  Children  for,  1 
32,    III.    126;    Clifton's   cl 
against,     79-S3,     85-86,      11 
L26;  Star  Chamber  decree  against, 
sis;:.     85-S7*;     I  feci     of     decree 
against,  83,  87-91,  93-94,   L03,   l  L5, 
L59;  assignment  by,  to   Hawkins, 
85  st;.  89  91,  93  :  circumvent 
cree.    B5,    81  -91,    L03  :    articles    of 
agreement    by,    with    ECirkham    «'/ 
tu.,  85,  87-91,    L02;   compelled   to 
leave     London.     B7,     93*;     "eight 
shillings"  salary  of,  B8,    102  ,    103*, 
L25;  agreement   with   ECirkham  rt 
al.    to    share   profits    and   exp 
at  Blackfriar 
129. 

Every   Man   in   his  Humour.     See 

Jon 

Every  Man  out  of  his  Humour.  See 
Ji  hisi  in. 

Evidences,  summary  of,  on  Black- 
friars.   L2I 


196  CHILDREN  OF  THE  CHAPEL  AT  BLACKFRIARS 

Evolution  of  Court-services  of  Chil- 
dren of  Chapel,  5,  11,  68-70,  71, 
73,  74. 

Evolved  performances  of  Children 
at  Blackfriars,  4-5. 

Expenditures  at  Blackfriars,  agree- 
ment to  share,  897-90,  91,  92'; 
royal  provisions  for,  91-92,  100, 
10l'-2,  103,  104,  106-7,  113,  126, 
127,   128-29,   173M4,   175,   178-791. 


Faery  Pastorall,  The.    See  Percy. 

Favor  of  Elizabeth  to  Blackfriars, 
94,  95,  96,  99,  126-29,  &c.  See 
Actors,  Blackfriars,  Children, 
Elizabeth,  &c. 

Fletcher,  John.     See  Beaumont. 

Ford,  John,  new-found  play  by,  xv, 
1642. 

Fortune  theatre,  plat  of,  ix,  50-51; 
contract  for,  72-8,  292,  423,  42\  453, 
471,  52\  1375;  Thomas  Platter  on, 
72-8;    Globe    as    model    for,    72-8, 
294,  321,  392,  47\  137;  date  of,  9s, 
29,  156;  architecture  of,  183;  cost 
of,  29;  structure  and  finishing  of, 
321,  423;  burned,  and  rebuilt  with 
brick   veneer,    347;    engraving    of, 
34T;    size    of,    39,    493,    50-plat-51, 
52,  137 ;  gentlemen's  rooms  of,  425, 
50-plat-51,    137-38;   size   of  stage 
of,  45,  47,  50-plat-51,  137;  sitting 
on  the  stage  at,  45,   137-41;  gal- 
leries in,  471,  50-plat-51,  52;  seats 
and    capacity    of,    49,    50-plat~52; 
audiences  of,  relative  to  stage,  50- 
plat-51,  52 ;  gentlemen  and  yard- 
crowd  of,  52;  Duke  of  Stettin  at, 
1091;     Samson    at,     1091;     sitting 
"over"     stage     of,     136;     orders 
against,     revoked,     1491-50,     1611; 
location  of,  1531,  156;  complaints 
against,     156 ;     company    of,     re- 
tained but  restricted  by  Elizabeth, 
155,    156;    list   of   dramatists    for, 
1632.     See   Blackfriars,   Elizabeth, 
Globe,  Theatre. 
Freiburg     Stadttheater,      stage-level 
gallery  in,  42*;  resemblance  of,  to 
Blackfriars,  42*. 
French     theatre.     See    Theatre,    in 

France. 
French  Stage.  See  Stage,  in  France. 
Furniture,     at     Blackfriars,     91-92, 
1012,   126,   127. 

G.-F.  =  Greenstreet's    transcripts,    in 


Fleay's  Stage,  364,  365,  et  passim. 
Galleries,   at    Blackfriars,   6,   41-43, 
46,  50-plat-51,  124;  not  at  Paul's 
and  Whitefriars,  7 ;  at  public  the- 
atres, 7,  424,  52;  on  stage-level,  in 
early    and    modern    theatres,    42*, 
52 ;  in  French  theatres,  46-47 ;  at 
Globe   and   Fortune,  47\  50-platr 
51,  52. 
"General  pardon,"  meaning  of,  772. 
Gentleman  Usher.    See  Chapman. 
Gentlemen,  attendance  of,  at  Black- 
friars   and    public    theatres.      See 
Audiences. 
Gentlemen's    rooms,    in   public   the- 
atres,   425-43,    45,    491,    SO^-plat-Sl, 
1344,    136,    1376-38,    141;    and    the 
yard-crowd,  52 ;  in  relation  to  gal- 
lants   on    the    stage,    44,   45,    134*, 
136,    137-41;    in   private    theatres, 
141.       See     Blackfriars,      Boxes, 
Lords'  rooms,  "Orchestra." 
German  actors,  art  of,  484,  134J. 
German  theatre,  sitting  on  the  stage 
of,  xi,  46,  146-47 ;  acting  and  stag- 
ing  in,   484,   1345;    Duke  of   Stet- 
tin's,   modeled    after    Blackfriars, 
109-12,  128;  foundation  for  mod- 
ern,     110 ;      English     actors     as 
founders  of,  HO2,  1841-85 ;  patron- 
age of  early  English  companies  in, 
after     English     noble    patronage, 
111.     See  Stage,  Theatre. 
Globe    theatre,    new    documents   on, 
ix-x,    103,    343,    4410,    45\    561,  123; 
as   model    for   Fortune,  72-8,   29*, 
32\    392,    471,    137;     influence    of 
Blackfriars  on  accommodations  of, 
8,   35;   date  of,   8,   92,   29,   34,   77*, 
155 ;     Satiromastix    at,     ll1,     158, 
181;  architecture  of,  183;  cost  of, 
29;    erection   of,    29,    772,    155-56; 
structure    and    finishing    of,    321; 
burned,     33-34 ;     date,     materials, 
and  cost  of  the  new,  34;  size  of, 
36,  39,  52;  sitting  on  the  stage  of, 
45,  134*,  136-41;  galleries  in,  471; 
capacity    of,    49,    52;    unhistorical 
stage  of,  491,  137";  gentlemen  and 
the  yard-crowd  at,  52 ;  gentlemen 
and  stage-gallants  at,  45,  1344,  136, 
138 ;  strictures  in  Hamlet  at,  an- 
swered   by    May    Day    at    Black- 
friars,   86,    168;    Duke   of   Stettin 
at,   1081;    unknown  play  at,   1081; 
annexes   Malcontent,   134;    sitting 


SUBJECT  INDEX 


197 


"over"  stage  of,  136 ;  orders 
against,  revoked,  149-50,  1611; 
location  of,  1531;  company  of,  re- 
tained but  restricted  by  Elizabeth, 
155,  156;  connected  with  Essex 
conspiracy,  157,  160;  Richard  II 
at,  157,  160;  list  of  dramatists  for, 
1632;  plays  of,  with  local  allu- 
sions, 164,  166 ;  decency  of  plays 
at,  165.  See  Blackfriars,  Eliza- 
beth, Fortune,  Shakespeare,  The- 
atre. 

'"Great  Hall"  or  auditorium,  of 
Blackfriars,  7,  36,  37,  38,  39,  40, 
41,  43,  49,  74;  of  Whitefriars,  7; 
earliest  use  of,  for  play-acting, 
21-22,  23-24,  423;  rooms  above, 
at  Blackfriars,  40-41,  and  their 
uses,  41,  74,  1283. 

Gull,  the,  subject  of  satire,  1388; 
Davies  on,  1388-39;  Skialctheia 
on,  1388-39;  Folhe's  Anatomie  on, 
138s-40;  as  pretended  gallant,  139; 
The  Guls  Home-Book  on,  1402. 

Gyles,  Nathaniel,  commission  to,  to 
take  up  children,  x,  17,  53,  57, 
60,-62,  65,  66,  68,  70,  71,  73-74, 
77-83,    84,    99,    101,    102,    113,    114, 

126,  127,  152;  and  augmentation 
of  Chapel  salaries,  3" ;  not  lessee 
of  Blackfriars,  561 ;  biography  of, 
58s;  succeeds  Hunnis,  58;  privy 
seal  and  patent  to,  as  Master  of 
Chapel  Children,  593-60,  71,  74 
77 ;  allowances  to,  for  keep  of 
Children,  593-60,  647,  73;  commis- 
sion to,  as  Master  at  Windsor, 
681 ;  interpretation  of  commission 
to  take  up  children,  in  practice, 
70-72,    73-76,    77-83,    95-97,    106-7, 

127,  152,  155-62,  175;  effect  of 
Star  Chamber  decree  on,  70-71, 
83,  127;  unites  with  Evans,  71-72, 
73-76,  si,  128s,  152;  Clifton's 
charge  against,  77-83,  113J-14*. 
126. 

Hamlet.     See  Shakespeare. 

Hawkins,  Alexander,  surety  for 
rent  of  Blackfriars,  57,  90;  as- 
signment of  lease  to,  S5-86,  89-91 ; 
partner  in  Blackfriars  manage- 
ment. 88.    See  Evans,  Kirkham. 

Heminges  and  Condell,  on  sitting 
on  the  stage,   L36. 

Henrietta,  Queen,  attends  theatre, 
97". 


Henry  VII,  and  Master  of  the  Chil- 
dren, 63  ;  uses  Children  of  Chapel 
as  actors,  69. 

Henry  VIII,  dissolves  monasteries, 
and  grants  Blackfriars  to  favor- 
ites, 20-21 ;  residents  of  Black- 
friars under,  27 ;  and  Master  of 
Children,  63;  uses  Children  of 
Chapel  as  actors,  69. 

Henslowe,  Philip,  contract  by,  for 
Fortune,  7"-8,  29 ;  contract  by,  for 
Hope,  7'-8,  30;  list  of  dramatists 
employed  by,  163a ;  lost  dramas  of, 
with  local  allusions,  164;  on  Rose 
players   in  the  country,    L75\ 

History  of  children-companies,  un- 
known, vii,  viii. 

Histriotnastix.     See  Marston. 

Hope  theatre,  contract  for,  7"'-8,  30', 
31 J  date  of,  9';  cost  of,  30,  33; 
size  and  capacity  of,  30-31,  33, 
50';  modeled  on  Swan,  30,  31* ; 
engraving  of,  321;  stage  of,  33, 
45,  134,  L38;  document  on  uses 
of,  333;  location  of,  33*,  153';  gen- 
tlemen's rooms  of,  425;  "orches- 
tra" of,  42",   138. 

Hunnis.  William,  commission  to,  to 
take  up  children,  x,  6."),  66".  70 ; 
death  of,  5S4;  succeeded  by  Gyles 
as  Master  of  Children  of  Chapel, 
584,   128s. 

Imitations,  of  Blackfriars  Children 
and  offsprings,  1,  16,  117',  121, 
163;  of  Blackfriars  in  Germany, 
109,  ill;  of  English  actors  in 
Germany,  no3;  of  Court  of  Louis 
XI Y,  111  ;  of  Blackfriars  customs, 
130,  L36,  14  1-17.  L63;  of  Black- 
friars plays,  166-6S;  evidences  of, 
incomplete,  166;  by  Blackfriars 
dramatists.    L61 

Impressment  of  children,  under 
Elizabeth,   x.  60'  62,   64 

before  Eli  sabeth,  62  64    See 
Commission. 

luterludia,  at  Blackfriars,  and  of 
modern  drama,  9,  122,  See  Mu- 
sic, Sing 

Intermezzos,  at  Blackfriars,  and  in 
modern  drama.  •.'.  122.  See  Mu- 
sic, Singing. 

Internal  evidences  of  plays,  historic- 
al    unsnbstantiativencss     of,     7'~8, 
LSI",     L37",     167,     L67*.     See 
Stage  directions. 


198 


CHILDREN  OF  THE  CHAPEL  AT  BLACKFRIARS 


Isle  of  Dogs.    See  Nash. 
Isle  of  Guls.    See  Day. 

Jack    Drum's    Entertainment.      See 

Marston. 
James    I,    masque    within    the    play 
under,  xii,   5,   113;   children-com- 
panies  under,   1,   5,   9,   12,   13,   15, 
16,     4410-4d\     74,     105,     HO2,     113, 
117\    121,   163,    1772,   183;    offends 
Scotland    with    choristers,   3;    fu- 
neral of,  3 ;  music  and  dancing  in 
plays   under,  5,  113;  private  the- 
atres  under,   7,   8,   91;    suppresses 
Blackfriars    children,    13,    44l0-45 , 
1772;  satirized  by  Blackfriars,  15, 
1631,  1772-78;  and  building  of  new 
Globe,  342;  reduces  Blackfriars  to 
public-theatre  level,  74,  183;  state 
control  of  theatres  under,  74,  148, 
183;  Court-entertainments  of,  and 
Blackfriars     influences,     123 ;    re- 
vokes   Elizabeth's    theatrical    or- 
ders, 1494-50,  16 11;   contention  of, 
with  City  over  Blackfriars,  1542; 
as  James  VI  of  Scotland,  patron- 
izes Fletcher's  actors,  1753. 
Jests  at  Blackfriars,  in  Byron  trag- 
edies,   15,   4410,    163;    in   Cynthia's 
Revels,    1325,    1652 ;    on    my    fine 
gentleman,    483,     1325,    1334,    165% 
177a. 
Jests    to    Make    you    Merry.     See 
Dekker. 

Jig,  us. 

Jonson,  Ben,  in  stage-quarrel,  x-xi, 
xii,  133,  140,  158,  165-662,  168, 
169-72,  178-81 ;  rank  of,  12 ;  as 
dramatist  for  children-companies, 
12,  414,  171;  "in  a  gallery"  at 
Blackfriars,  414;  and  "gallants  in 
the  lords'  rooms,"  414;  and  Chap- 
man as  writers  of  masques,  1211 ; 
Malcontent  dedicated  to,  172. 

Apologetical  Dialogue,  reply 

to   Satiromastix,    171. 

Case    is    Altered,    The,    ear- 


liest play  at  Blackfriars,  58 ;  act 
ors  required  in,  752 ;  evidences  in, 
of  singing,  1144;  music,  1161; 
dancing,  118 ;  satirizes  "public" 
theatres  and  their  audiences,  1761. 
Cynthia's   Revels,   on  bugle 


blast  at  opening  of  play,  ll1;  on 
music  and  tiring-house  at  Black- 
friars,   482;    actors    in,    752,    76% 


1325;  masque  in,  and  Queen's  re- 
quirements at  Blackfriars,  97% 
1221;  evidences  in,  of  singing, 
1144;  music,  1161;  dancing,  118*; 
masque  within,  119;  on  sitting  on 
stage,  132* ;  on  audiences,  165 ; 
satirizes  Marston  and  Dekker, 
170;  satirized  in  What  you  Will, 
171;  satirizes  "public"  theatres, 
1761. 

Devil   is    an    Ass,    The,    on 


sitting  on  the  stage,   142s. 

Epicoene,    and    children-act- 


ors, 12. 

Every  Man  in  his  Humour, 


and  stage-quarrel,  170. 

Every  Man  out  of  his  Hu- 


mour, on  sitting  on  the  stage, 
1323;  on  Marston,  170;  plagiarized 
by  Dekker  et  al.,  170. 

Page     of     Plymouth,     with 


Dekker,  170. 

Poetaster,  on  bugle-blast   at 


opening  of  play,  ll1 ;  satirized  in 
Satiromastix,  414,  133,  171 ;  actors 
in,  752,  763;  evidences  in,  of  sing- 
ing, 1144;  music,  1161 ;  dancing, 
1182;  masque  within,  119;  satir- 
izes Dekker,  133 ;  Dekker's  late 
reference  to,  1334;  on  audiences, 
165-66. 

Robert    II    King    of    Scots, 


with  Dekker,  170. 
See     Blackfriars,     Plays,     Stage- 
quarrel. 
Jonson-Marston-Dekker,  quarrel  of, 
x-xi,    xii,    133,    140,    158,    165-66', 
168,  169-72,   178-81. 

Killigrew.  See  D'Avenant-Killi- 
grew. 

Kirkham,  Edward,  suits  at  law  by, 
364,  89-91 ;  provides  apparel  for 
Children,  83,  98-100,  103-4,  126; 
articles  by,  with  Evans  et  al.,  85, 
87-91,  102;  as  Yeoman  of  the 
Revels,  874,  897,  99,  101,  103-4;  as 
important  factor  at  Blackfriars, 
874;  unreliability  of  testimony  of, 
897;  "the  said  complainant,"  98- 
100. 

Kirkham,  Rastell,  and  Kendall,  ar- 
ticles of  agreement  by,  with  Ev- 
ans, 85,  873-91 ;  new  partners  with 
Evans  at  Blackfriars,  87,  102,  103- 
4 ;  agreement  of,  to  share  profits 


SUBJECT  INDEX 


199 


and  expenses  at  Blackfriars,  897- 
90,    91,    92",    126,    129;    carry    out 
Queen's  will,  113,  115. 
Kirkman's    Drolls,    picture    of    Red 

Bull    from,   7:-8. 

Law,  against  strolling  players,  150, 
i;v;  against  criticism  in 
stage-plays,  164,   176,  1812. 

Lease  of  Blackfriars,  to  Shakespeare 
and  fellows,  10,  343,  35,  44'°,  45\ 
561;  to  Evans,  17,  40,  56l,  57-58, 
84,  88,  127,  128*;  date  of,  10,  17, 
35,  44"',  57,  S4 ;  amount  for,  45\ 
57 ;  surety  and  bond  for,  57,  85l, 
90 ;  term  of,  57,  84 ;  assignment 
of,  to  Hawkins,  85-86,  89*. 

Light.     Sec   Candle. 

Local  allusions.     See  Plays. 

London.     Sec  City. 

London  social  centre,  at  Blackfriars, 
7.  35-36,  43,  45,  483,  51,  95-97; 
and  other  theatres,  51,  161. 

Lord  Mayor.     See  City. 

Lords'  rooms,  at  Blackfriars,  6,  41B- 
43,  49,  50-plat-."»l,  124,   140,  141. 

Lyly,  John,  Campaspc  and  Sapho 
and  Phao,  at  Blackfriars,  24. 

Maintenance  of  Children  at  Black- 
friars, by  the  Queen,  x,  3,  4,  40, 
71,  73-76,  91-92,  95,  98-104,  105, 
106-7,  126,  127,  128-29,  178-82; 
expenditures  for,  x,  5,  91-92,  100, 
10 1',     103,     104,     126,    127,     128-29, 

Malcontent,  The.     Sec  Marston. 
Marstou,  John,   in  stage-quarrel,   x- 
xi,   xii.    169-72,    178-81;   as   writer 
of    masques,    121;    as    Blackfriars 
poet,   171. 

Antonw    and    Mcllida,    and 

■quarrel,    170. 
Antonio's       Rez'cnge,       and 


stage-quarrel,  170. 

Dutch     Courtezan,    The.    on 


galleries  at  Blackfriars,  42;  actors 
required  in,  7.v  ';  evidences  in,  <>f 
singing,  ill';  music,  1161;  danc- 
ing, 118*;  masque  within,  L20;  ami 
quarrel,  171. 

1 1 isti ioinasti.v,    SOngS    in.    10; 


touches  Jonson,   169;  jibed  at  by 
Jonson,  i~0. 

Jack    Drum's   Entertainment. 


Malcontent,    The,    on    music 

in  theatres,  10',  1162 ;  actors  re- 
quired in,  7."." ;  i  vidences  in,  of 
singing,  1 14* ;  music,  116';  danc- 
ing, 118";  masque  within,  121;  an- 
ed  by  Globe,  134;  on  sitting 
on  the  stage,  134*,  L38;  at  Black- 
friars and  Globe,  L34  ;  and  stage- 
quarrel,  171;  dedicated  to  Jonson, 
172. 

Scourge    of    Villainy,    The, 


glances  at  Jonson,   169;   jibed  at 
by  Jonson,   170. 

What    You    Will,  on   size   of 


and  stage-quarrel,  171. 


Paul's  stage,  43.  130;  evidences 
in,  of  singing,  114*;  music,  1161; 
dancing,  UEr;  on  sitting  on  the 
;  satirizes  Cynthia's 
Revels,   171. 

Marston,  Chapman,  Jonson,  East- 
ward Ho.  indiscretions  of,    15. 

Masque,  within  the  play,  at  Black- 
friars, xi.  xii.  •".,  10*,  44,  '.'7-,  113, 
1 14.  L19-21,  L22-24  .  I'm  ;  in- 
fluences of,  xi.  123,  167;  under 
Elizabeth,  xi,  xii,  :..  10*,  44,  1 14, 
l  L9  21,  L22  :.'l.  163,  l»'.7  ;  under 
Janus  I,  xii.  .">.  113;  character  of, 
L19;  Bacchanalian  features  in, 
119*;  as  new  dramatic  feature, 
110,  122-23;  li-t  of,  at  Blackfriars, 
1  L9  :.'l  ;  origin  of,  122'  ;  elaborate 
requirements   of,    1'.' 

with   antimasque.    10*. 

at    Court.    22.     1 1^-10.     122', 

123. 

Ma-trr  of  the   Revels,  and  origin  of 

private  theatJ  warden  as, 

the  tir-t.  kfriars  as 

office    of,    21-22;    Whitefriars    u 

office    of.     22';     Tilnej 

L01  ;    Buck   a-.   B7*;   <!•.:• 
LOO  :    accounts    of,    ioi  ;    Queen's 
<>rder   t". 
May  Pay  '  apman. 

::ina     picture     of     theatre-inte- 
rior.  7". 
Middleton,    Thomas,    Roaring   Girl, 

The.  on  sitting  on  the 
Model  of  theatre.  Blackfi 

.  1 11, 
1 .-.  1 . 

' 
poly.     See  Theatrical. 
ui      VOlive.     See   Chapman. 
Morns   dance,    lis. 


200 


CHILDREN  OF  THE  CHAPEL  AT  BLACKFRIARS 


Much  Ado  about  Nothing.  See 
Shakespeare. 

Music,  taught  and  practiced  at 
Blackfriars,  xi,  4,  5,  9,  10,  11,  71, 
106-7,  113,  114,  115,  116-18,  121, 
122,  163;  Duke  of  Stettin's  Diary 
on,  5,  10,  106-7,  113,  117;  within 
the  play,  5,  9-10,  114,  116,  121, 
122 ;  preceding  the  play,  5,  9,  10, 
106-7,  113,  115,  117-18,  122;  char- 
acteristic of  children-plays,  9-10, 
113,  116-18,  121,  122;  character- 
istic of  private  theatre,  9-101,  122; 
in  public  theatres,  9,  10-11,  116', 
122;  at  Paul's,  9,  122;  source  of 
praeludia,  intcrludia,  and  inter- 
mezzos in  modern  drama,  9,  122; 
stage-directions  for,  10,  113,  1161- 
18,  121;  Malcontent  on,  101,  1162; 
in  The  Tempest,  10";  of  Black- 
friars orchestra,  104,  482;  The 
Actors  Remonstrance  on,  104; 
Cynthia's  Revels  on,  482;  in  early 
German  theatre,  111;  "shows" 
containing,  115,  1213-22;  concerts, 
popularized  by  Blackfriars,  1171, 
121 ;  publications  of,  for  concerts, 
1171. 

Musical  entertainments.  See  Con- 
cert. 

Musical  instruments,  at  Blackfriars, 
106-7,  116,  1171. 

Music  ale.     See  Concert. 

Musicians,  in  balcony,  at  Blackfri- 
ars, 48",  50-plat~51 ;  not  in  "or- 
chestra" of  public  theatres,  425, 
45,  137*. 

Nash,  Thomas,  Isle  of  Dogs,  re- 
strained at  Rose,  155,  181"'. 

Necro mantes.     See    Percy. 

Newington  Butts  theatre,  date  of, 
9" ;  location  of,  1531 ;  dramatists 
for,    1632. 

Nobility,  in  evolution  of  private 
theatre,  5x-6,  222;  patronage  of 
public  theatres  by,  as  model  for 
German  patronage,  111;  Eliza- 
beth's law  for  patronage  of  the- 
atres by,   152,  1523,  175s. 

Official  conduct  of  Blackfriars,  x,  1, 
4,  26,  40,  51,  71,  73-76,  87,  91-92, 
95-97,  98-104,  105,  106-7,  112,  115, 
125,  126,  127,  128-29,  160,  173-74, 
175-82 ;  summary  of  evidences  on, 
126-29. 


Official   orders.     See   Orders. 

Orchestra  at  Blackfriars,  excellence 
of,   10;   Whitelocke  on,  10\ 

"Orchestra"  in  London  theatres, 
meaning  of,  42^-43,  45,  137''-38. 
See  Gentlemen's  rooms. 

Orchestral  praeludia,  inierludia, 
and  intermezzos,  origin  of,  9,  122. 
See  Music,  Singing. 

Orders,  official,  against  theatres, 
significance  of,  cleared  up,  x,  xii; 
false  statement  of  City  concern- 
ing, against  Blackfriars,  53-54; 
Elizabeth's  purposes  in,  125,  129, 
150,  151,  152,  154-55,  157,  175; 
limiting  number  of  plays  per 
week,  125,  156;  period  and  num- 
ber of,  148 ;  early,  by  Elizabeth, 
regulating  Curtain  and  "Thea- 
tre," 1484;  Puritanism  not  cause 
of,  148-50;  request  of  City  for,  to 
suppress  theatres,  149,  152,  154, 
155,  156,  160 ;  City  neglects  exe- 
cution of,  149,  153,  155,  156,  1611, 
161"-62 ;    revocation   of,   by   James 

I,  1494-50,  1611;  protective  to 
Blackfriars,  153,  16T,  175-76; 
against  Rose,  155,  1812;  favorable 
to  Globe  and  Fortune,  155,  156; 
differentiating  "public"  and  "pri- 
vate" theatre,  156-57 ;  restraining 
Curtain,  158,  1812;  touching  Black- 
friars and  Paul's,  1581 ;  general, 
against  "public"  theatres  (1597), 
149,  153;  (l597-[8]),  155;  (June, 
1600),  125,  149,  156,  1611;   (March 

II,  1601),  157-58;  (Dec.  31, 
1601),  125,  149,  160,  16T;  (March 
19,    1602-[3]),   1621. 

by  City  of  London,  to  sup- 
press Blackfriars,  175,  532,  1542, 
16 11. 

Page   of  Plymouth.     See   Jonson. 

"Pardon,  general,"  meaning  of,  772. 

Patient  Grisell.     See  Dekker. 

Paul's,  the  church  Singing-school, 
7,  1073;  as  private  theatre,  7,  130\ 
1532;  size  and  capacity  of,  7;  no 
galleries  in,  7 ;  date  of,  8,  91,  153'  ; 
music  at,  9,  122 ;  Satiromastix  at, 

III,  181;  size  of  stage  at,  43,  44, 
130-311;  sitting  on  stage  of,  44, 
46\  130-3T;  location  of,  153';  re- 
strained, 1581 ;  list  of  dramatists 
for,  1632;  plays  of,  with  local  al- 


SUBJECT  INDEX 


201 


lusions,  164 ;  plays  of,  influenced 
by   Blackfriars  poets,   166-67. 

Paul's  Boys,  relations  of,  to  pres- 
ent history,  l1;  patronized  by 
Elizabeth,  l1,  4,  67,  151,  1.57;  first 
at  Blackfriars,  24;  commission  to 
Thos.  Gyles  to  take  up  children 
for,  67",  1071;  used  as  actors,  24, 
69-70 ;  music  and  singing  in  plays 
of,  9,  122 ;  list  of  dramatists  for, 
163";  plays  of,  with  local  allusions, 
164;  plays  of,  influenced  by  Black- 
friars  poets,    166-67. 

Percy,  W.,  The  Faery  Pastorall, 
Necromantes,  and  The  Cuck- 
queanes  and  Cuckolds  Errants, 
never  acted,  49l,  1313;  impossible 
stage-directions   of,    1313. 

Phoenix  theatre.     See  Cockpit. 

Plat,  suggestive,  of  Blackfriars,  ix, 
47,  50-51,  52;  of  the  Fortune,  ix, 
50-51,   52. 

Platter,  Thomas,  Diary  (1599),  on 
Curtain,  Bear-Garden,  and  Globe, 
72-8 ;  on  comfort  in  London  the- 
atres,  51: ;   on   stage-apparel,   178J. 

Play-acting,  taught  at  Blackfriars, 
xi,  5,  71,  106-7,  113,  121-221,  124- 
25,   180. 

Players.     See  Actors. 

Playhouse.     See  Theatre. 

Plays,  recent  discoveries  of,  xv, 
164";  losses  in.  14-15,  122,  163- 
64,  172;  law  restricting  criticism 
in,   164,   176,   1812. 

at     Blackfriars,     chronology 

of,  xi,  xii,  75,  114s-18 ;  influences 
of,  on  Shakespeare  and  contem- 
poraries, xi,  12-15,  123,  166-68, 
174-82;  masques  within,  xi,  xii, 
5,  10\  44,  113,  114,  119-21,  122- 
24,  163,  167;  singing  within,  5, 
9-10,  113-15,  121,  163,  180;  sing- 
ing preceding,  5,  9,  106-7,  115, 
163,  180;  music  within,  5,  9-10, 
114,  116,  121,  122,  163;  music  pre- 
ceding, 5,  9,  10,  106-7,  113,  115, 
117-18,  163;  dancing  within,  5,  44, 
118,  119,  163 ;  shaped  by  condi- 
tions of  dramatic  freedom,  13-14, 
113,  123;  with  local  allusions,  15, 
164-72;  quality  of,  15,  165;  num- 
ber of,  acted  per  week,  71,  106-7, 
124-25  ;  number  of  actors  in,  74- 
76,  127;  list  of,  75,  114-18;  names 
of  actors  in,  76,  80',  1325,  163,  165*. 


1771;  Puritanic  opposition  to,  79, 
126,  159;  stage-directions  corrob- 
orative of  Duke  of  Stettin's  Diary 
concerning,  113,  121;  masque  as 
new  feature  in,  119,  122-23;  as 
comedies  in  high  life,  124 ;  imi- 
tated, 166-68;  imitative,  167-68. 
by    children-companies,    sci- 


entific editing  of,  vii ;  character- 
istics of,  9-10,  14-15,  113,  114-19, 
L19-21,  122,  123-24;  proportion  of, 
12,   163-64. 

Heminge  and  Condell's  ad- 
dress in  1623  folio  of  Shake- 
speare's, on  sitting  on  stage,  136. 
with    local    allusions,    14-15, 


82-83,  86-87,  163-72,  177'-7S ;  the 
Byron  tragedies  as,  15,  163 ;  evi- 
dences of  losses  of,  in  Henslowe's 
Diary,  14-15,  163-64;  Hamlet 
among,   164,   173   - 

Poets.     See  Dramatists. 

Popularity  of  Children  at  Black- 
friars, 803,  85',  94,  104,  117-18, 
123,   124,   166,    173-74,    L76   7  7. 

Fracludia,  of  early  and  modern 
drama,  9,  122.  See  Music,  Sing- 
ing. 

Precedents  for  Children  of  Chapel 
at  Blackfriars  as  actors,  1,  62-66, 
68-7". 

"Private"  and  "public"  theatres  dif- 
l  initiated,     9,     12.      L56   7,7,     16l\ 

i<;:.J,  176'. 

Privv  Council,  petition  to,  against 
Blackfriars.  17'.  27,  53*,  54,  12&, 
152,  154*;  takes  no  action  against 
Blackfriars,  53.  54,  128*.  152;  or- 
ders of,  against  public  theatres, 
."4.  it-.  L49,  l  .-.<>'■-:,  r.  152,  153, 
155,  L56,  157-58,  160;  City's  re- 
quests to,  to  suppress  theatres, 
149,  152,  17.4.  L55,  156,  160;  orders 
of,  not  executed  by  City,  149,  158, 
L54,    L55,    L56,    L61  .  wider 

James  I,  revokes  Elizabethan  or- 
ders, 149*-50,  161*;  restrains  Rose, 
155,  181";  restrains  Curtain,  158, 
181'.    5Y<-  City,  Elizabeth,  Orders. 

Profits   at    Blackfriars.   by    Burbage- 
Shakespeare    companj . 
agreemenl  by  Evans,  Kirkham  ct 
at.  to  share,  Bfl  92*;  failure 

of,     in     public     theatres,     through 
Blackfriars.   causes   companj 
travel.    l73*-74,   175*. 


202 


CHILDREN  OF  THE  CHAPEL  AT  BLACKFRIARS 


"Public"  and  "private"  theatres  dif- 
ferentiated, 9,  12,  156-57,  16 11, 
165%   1761. 

Publications  on  children-companies, 
vii.  xii. 

Puritanism,  opposition  of,  to  Eliza- 
beth's theatrical  purposes,  4,  79, 
J26,  149,  150,  159;  in  Clifton's 
attack,  126,  150,  159 ;  not  cause 
of  orders  against  theatres,  148- 
50,  156. 

Purposes,  theatrical,  of  Elizabeth, 
1,  4,  71,  87,  96,  112,  113,  125,  127, 
1283,  129,  148-62,  1505,  151*,  152, 
154,    157,    159,    175. 

Queen.     See  Elizabeth,  Henrietta. 

Realism,  influence  of  Blackfriars 
plays  on,  167. 

Red  Bull  theatre,  picture  of,  72-8, 
52,  135,  138  ;  date  of,  9* ;  audience 
of,  in  relation  to  stage,  52;  sitting 
"over"  stage  at,  135 ;  sitting  on 
the  stage  at,   138. 

Reformation  of  theatres,  Elizabeth's 
plans  and  purposes  in,  1,  4,  71,  87, 
96,  112,  113,  125,  127,  128",  129, 
1.48-62,    150°,    151",    152,    154,    157, 

159,  175;  methods  of,  by  City, 
150-51,  153 ;  methods  of,  by  Eiiz- 
abeth,  ISO'-Sl2,  152-53,  154-55; 
duplicity  of  City  in,  151,  153,  159, 

160,  161-62. 

Relations,  of  children-companies  to 
dramatic  and  histrionic  art,  vii, 
viii,  ix,  xii,  1,  9,  12,  13,  14-15,  16, 
105,  122,  141,  147,  1803;  of  audi- 
ences to  stage,  ix,  50-plat~51,  52; 
of  Blackfriars  to  other  theatres, 
poets,  and  players,  x-xi,  xii,  133, 
140,  158,  165-662,  167,  168,  169-72, 
178-81 ;  of  gentlemen  to  yard- 
crowd,  52 ;  of  Der  Bestrafte  Bru- 
dermord  to  Hamlet,  1841. 

Rent,  repairs,  and  expenses  at 
Blackfriars,  provisions  for,  57, 
893,  897,  91-92,  100,  lOl1^,  103, 
104,  106-7,  113,  126,  127,  128-29, 
1732-74,  175. 

Rental  of  Blackfriars,  amount  of, 
by  Evans,  301,  451,  57,  178; 
amount  of,  by  Shakespeare  and 
associates,  451 ;  agreement  by  Ev- 
ans, Kirkham  ct  al.  to  share,  S97- 
90,   91,   922,   126,   1*9. 


Repertoire  of  Children  at  Black- 
friars, viii,  5,  75,  122. 

Revels.    See  Children  of,  Master  of. 

"Revels"  festival,  meaning  of,  6. 

Richard  II,  at  Globe,  in  Essex  con- 
spiracy, 157,  160. 

Richard  III,  commission  by,  to  take 
up  children,  623;  reign  and  death 
of,  622-63. 

Roaring  Girl,  The.     See  Middleton. 

Robert  II  King  of  Scots.  See  Jon- 
son. 

Rose  theatre,  date  of,  92,  138 ;  archi- 
tecture of,  183;  cost  of,  30;  rental 
value  of,  301 ;  sitting  on  stage  of, 
138;  location  of,  1531 ;  restrained, 
155,  1812 ;  Worcester's  men  at,  go 
into  country,  17 52. 

Rossiter,  Philip,  lutenist,  and  man- 
ager of  the  Children  of  the  Rev- 
els to  the  Queen  at  Whitefriars, 
1171;  theatre  of,  in  Blackfriars 
precinct,  suppressed,  1542,  1611, 
1612-62. 

Rowley,  William,  new-found  play 
by,  xv,   1642. 

Roxana  picture  of  theatre-interior, 
7" ;  on  sitting  "over"  stage,  135. 

Salisbury  Court  theatre,  as  private 
theatre,  9,  1305 ;  date  of,  91 ;  music 
at,  10";  modeled  after  Blackfriars, 
183,  36,  393,  436,  141;  size  of,  36, 
393,  43",  141 ;  documents  concern- 
ing, 36",  393;  stage  of,  43-43*; 
Queen  Henrietta  at,  973;  sitting 
on  stage  of,  130,  141 ;  location  of, 
1532. 

Sapho  and  Phao.     See  Lyly. 

Satiromastix.    See  Dekker. 

School,  the,  in  evolution  of  private 
theatre,   51. 

Scourge  of  Villainy,  The.  See 
Marston. 

Seating  capacity.     See  Capacity. 

Seats,  at  Blackfriars,  6,  492,  50- 
plat-51,  52;  general  comfort  of, 
in  theatres,  8,  34-35,  351,  50-51, 
511,  52;  at  public  theatres,  7,  136; 
prices  of,  at  Blackfriars  and  vari- 
ous theatres,  1122-13. 

Secular  uses  of  Children  of  Chapel, 
1 ;  origin  of,  5.  See  Blackfriars, 
Children,    Elizabeth. 

Shakespeare,    William,    new    docu- 


SUBJECT  INDEX 


203 


ments  concerning,  ix-x,  261,  27*, 
343,  4410,  451,  561,  1235 ;  and  asso- 
ciates lease  Blackfriars  theatre,  10, 
343,  35,  44'°,  451,  56l ;  only  great 
dramatist  not  writing  for  Chil- 
dren, 12;  effect  of  theatrical  con- 
ditions on  dramatic  freedom  of, 
13-14,  123 ;  as  individual  genius, 
13-14,  167";  in  competition  with 
Blackfriars  Boys,  13,  14,  15,  167- 
68,  173-74,  175-82;  errors  con- 
cerning connection  with  Black- 
friars, 18 ;  Blackfriars  property 
of,  261,  27,  28;  Heminge  and  Con- 
dell's  address  in  1623  edition  of 
plays  by,  on  sitting  on  stage,  136 ; 
on  stage-quarrel,  1584,  168,  172, 
1732-74,  180*-81,  183;  influence  of 
Blackfriars  dramas  on,  167 ;  in- 
fluences of,  on  Blackfriars  dramas 
and  Chapman,  167-  68 ;  as  giver 
and  receiver  of  influences,  167*. 
Hamlet,  date  of,  established, 


lations  of,  to  Der  Besirafte  Bru- 
dermord,   184 

Much    Ado    about    Nothing, 


xi,  86,  168\  174-751,  1822,  183- 
841 ;  historical  problems  of,  xi, 
182-84';  historical  value  of  chil- 
dren-passage in,  as  an  original 
document,  xi,  164,  173,  182;  ante- 
dates Star  Chamber  decree,  86 ; 
satirized  in  May  Day,  86,  168 ;  on 
singing  of  Blackfriars  Children, 
115,  180;  champions  cause  of  pub- 
lic theatres  against  Blackfriars, 
129,  168,  176;  influence  of  Black- 
friars vogue  on,  133,  167 ;  minia- 
tures Blackfriars  fad  of_  sitting 
on  stage,  133;  local  allusions  of, 
133,  164.  17.T-74;  censures  Eliza- 
beth's theatrical  partisanship, 
158*,  178-81  ;  on  stage-quarrel, 
158*,  17S-82 ;  escapes  penalty  of 
law  against  criticism,  L64,  ITU, 
181J;  on  losses  of  genteel  audi- 
tors to  Blackfriars,  164,  175-77, 
181-82;  children-passage  of,  in 
Q,,  Q2,  F,,  quoted,  173*-74;  and 
interpreted  on  historical  basis, 
173-85;  holds  Queen's  patronage 
of  Blackfriars  as  cause  of  com- 
panies traveling  into  country, 
175s-76;  "logic"  of  art  in  chil- 
dren-passage of,  178-81*;  cause  of 
partial  omissions  in  1604  quarto 
of,  1 S2— sr; :  new  significance  to 
quarto  and  folio  differences  in 
children-passage    of,    183-84' ;    re- 


character-extensions  of,  in  Sir 
Giles  Goosecap,  167 ;  date  of,  167. 
The    laming  of  the  Sh 


traces  of  influences  of,  in  1  he 
ll'idozc's  Tears,  10;>;  why  men- 
tions strolling  player-,  1  7.5"— 76  ; 
probable  date  of,   168,  1753. 

The    Tempest,   as   first   play 


by  Burbage-Shakespeare  company 
at  Blackfriars,  10*;  influences  on, 
by  Blackfriars  vogue,  10,  167; 
date  of,  10. 

oilus  and  Cressida,  theat- 


rical   partisanship    of,    168,    172; 
date  of,  168. 

Twelfth     Night,     character- 


extensions  of,  in  The  Gentleman 
Usher,  167-68;  and  in  M.  D'Olive, 
168;  date  of,  168. 

Shirley.  James.  The  Triumph  of 
Peace,  masque  with  antimasque 
of,   10\ 

"Showe,  a,"  at  Court,  by  Black- 
friars Boys,  115,  L21;  probable 
authors  of,  121\  See  Concert, 
Music 

Singing,    taught    and    practiced     at 
Blackfriars.  xi,  4,  5,  9,   10,  71,  80', 
106-7,    113-14*,     115.     L17, 
163,  180;  Duke  of  Stettin's  Diary 
on,  5.    10,    L06-7,    1  L3,    1  15.    117-18. 
121  ;  within  the  play.  5,  9-10,   113- 
14'.   115.   ii'.:;.   180;  preceding  play, 
5,   9,    10,    106-7,    L13,    115-16,    117, 
163,     L80;     in    concert,     mu 
"showe,"    or   praeludia,   5,    9,    i<>. 
106-7,    113,    115.    117-18,    121,    L22; 
characteristic    of    private    theatre 
and  children-plays,   10, 
ton's   charges   concerning,    - 
ill.    115:    Clifton's    charges    dis- 
proved,    80,     l  i::    l  1'.     l  15,     L80; 
stage-directions     for,     113,     114', 
!:.' I  ;     Hamlet    on,    at     Black:- 
1 15,   i-^o ;  chief  exhibitions  of,  by 
Blackfriars    Boys,    not    in    plays, 
115,    117.    L21. 

Sir  Giles  Goosecap.    See  Chapman. 

Sitting  on   the   stage,  a   custom   at 
Blackfriars,  w,  7, 
\,\.     it.    481,    50-plat-51, 
130    17  ;    at    Other   private    th 

4i.    L30,    L36,    137*;  not  at    Paul's 


204 


CHILDREN  OF  THE  CHAPEL  AT  BLACKFRIARS 


nor  Whitefriars,  44,  130-31;  as 
hindrance  to  players,  44,  142,  143- 
46 ;  at  public  theatres,  44,  45,  131*, 
136-41 ;  at  Globe,  44,  1344,  136-41 ; 
in  France,  46,  143-47;  Guls  Horne- 
Booke  on,  46,  1334,  1402,  140*;  in 
Germany,  46,  146-47 ;  origin  of 
custom  of,  at  Blackfriars,  130-34; 
a  Blackfriars  fad,  130,  141;  at 
Cockpit,  130,  136,  1374,  141;  at 
Salisbury  Court,  130,  141,  1431; 
bistory  of  custom  of,  130-47; 
Paul's  plays  on,  13 1\  1312;  evi- 
dences of,  131-34,  136-41 ;  Sir  John 
Davies  on,  1321 ;  Every  Man  out 
of  his  Humour  on,  1323;  Cynthia's 
Revels  on,  1325;  Hamlet's  utter- 
ance on,  1335;  Blackfriars  fad, 
miniatured  in  Hamlet,  133;  All 
Fools  on,  133-34";  Malcontent  on, 
1344,  136;  Heminges  and  Condell 
on,  in  address  to  1623  edition  of 
Shakespeare's  plays,  136" ;  Follie's 
Anatomie  on,  1363;  Roaring  Girl 
on,  1373;  Devil's  Last  Will  and 
Testament  on,  1387;  spread  of  the 
fashion,  141-47 ;  Devil  is  an  Ass 
on,  142;  suppressed  by  Charles  I, 
1431 ;  influences  of,  on  French 
drama  and  acting,  143 ;  D'Au- 
bignac  on,  143 ;  Tallemant  des 
Reaux  on,  1432;  Les  Facheux  on, 
143-45 ;  Voltaire's  Discourse  on 
Tragedy  on,  1451;  Semiramis  on, 
1452-46 ;  suppressed  in  France, 
146 ;  Goethe's  Wahrheit  u.  Dicht- 
ung  on,  1462-47.     See  Stage. 

Sitting  "over"  the  stage,  origin  of, 
134 ;  as  choice  position,  1345 ;  at 
public  theatres,  134-36 ;  evidences 
of,  134-35.  See  Davies,  Dekker, 
Fortune,  Globe,  Red  Bull,  Rox- 
ana,  Skialetheia. 

Size,  of  Blackfriars,  ix,  7,  28,  35,  36, 
38-39,  436,  46,  493,  50yplat-51, 
128s;  of  Paul's,  7;  of  Whitefriars, 
7,  36;  of  Cockpit,  8,  36,  393,  141; 
of  Fortune  and  Globe,  39,  493,  50- 
51,  52,  137.     See  Capacity,  Stage. 

Skialetheia,  on  sitting  "over"  stage, 
1351;  on  the  "gull,"  1388-39. 

Social  centre,  at  Blackfriars,  7,  35- 
36,  43,  45,  483,  51,  95-97  ;  at  other 
theatres,  51,  161. 

Songs.     See  Singing. 

Source,  of  Children  of  the   Chapel 


at  Blackfriars,  1,  70,  71,  112,  150; 
of  Children  of  Revels,  1,  74 ;  of 
music  in  modern  drama,  9,  122; 
of  private  theatre,  5-6,  12. 

Sources,  for  knowledge  of  public 
theatre,  72-8. 

Spectacular  effect,  at  Blackfriars, 
106-7,   124,   177. 

Stage,  at  Blackfriars,  location  of, 
ix,  36,  433,  141-42;  position  of, 
relative  to  audience,  ix,  50-plat- 
51,  52;  gallants  on,  xi,  7,  423,  43, 
44,  45,  46,  47,  48\  50-plat-51,  52, 
124,  130-47 ;  size  of,  38,  43-47,  50- 
plat-51 ;  position  of,  relative  to 
lords'  rooms,  425,  46-49,  50-plat- 
51;  structure  of,  425,  45,  46,  47, 
141-42;  equipment  of,  at  acquisi- 
tion of  Blackfriars  by  Shakespeare 
and  fellows,  451 ;  influences  of,  on 
French  stage,  46,  143-47;  plastic, 
47,  48-49;  plat  of,  47,  50-51;  and 
modern,  472,  473;  balcony  of,  48, 
50-plat-51 ;  curtains  or  traverses 
of,  483,  50-plat-51;  canopy  on, 
484;  furnishing  and  equipment  of, 
483-49,  55;  individuality  of,  49; 
unhistorical,  49\   1376. 

at  Cockpit,  size  of,  43 ;  sit- 
ting on,  44,   130,   136,   141. 

at   Curtain,   unhistorical,  49\ 

137";   sitting  on,  138. 

at   Fortune,   size  of,   45,   47, 


50-plat-51 ;  sitting  on,  45,  137-38  ; 
position  of  audience  relative  to, 
52;  position  of  gentlemen's  rooms 
and  yard-crowd  relative  to,  52; 
sitting  "over,"   136. 

at  Globe,  size  of,  45 ;  sitting 


on,  45,  1344,  136-41;  relation  of 
gentlemen's  rooms  to  stage-gal- 
lants on,  45,  1344,  136,  138;  un- 
historical, 49\  137°;  position  of 
audience  relative  to,  52 ;  position 
of  gentlemen's  rooms  and  yard- 
crowd  relative  to,  52;  sitting  over, 
136. 

at  Hope,  removable,  33 ;  po- 


sition of,  45,   138 ;   sitting  on,  45, 
138 ;  sitting  "over,"  134. 

at  Paul's,  size  of,  43,  44,  130- 


311;   sitting  on,  44,  46\  130-311. 
at  Red  Bull,  relation  of  au- 


dience to,  52 ;  sitting  "over,"  135 ; 
sitting  on,  138. 


SUBJECT  INDEX 


205 


at   Salisbury   Court,  size  of, 

43 ;  sitting  on,  44,  130,  141. 

at  Swan,  removable,  33  ;  po- 


sition of,   45,   138 ;   sitting  on,  45, 
138;   sitting  "over,"   135. 

at  "The  Theatre,"  unhistori- 


cal,  491,  137*. 

at    Whitefriars,   size   of,   43 ; 


sitting  on,  44,  130. 

in  France,  sitting  on,  ix,  46, 


143-47;  modeled  after  Blackfriars, 
46,  147. 

in    Germany,    sitting    on,    at 


Frankfurt,    reported    by    Goethe, 
46;  modern,  48\ 

modern,    size    of,    472;    view 


of  actors  on,  473;  acting  on,  1345 
See  Theatre. 

Stage  and  audience,  relative  posi- 
tions of,  ix,  50yplat-51,  52;  and 
gallants,  in  relation  to  gentlemen's 
rooms,  44,  45,  134',  136,  137-41. 

Stage  and  drama,  relations  of  chil- 
dren-companies to,  vii,  viii,  ix,  xii, 
1,  9,  12,  13,  14-15,  16,  105,  122, 
141,  147,  180\ 

Stage-apparel,  of  Blackfriars  chil- 
dren, furnished  by  Elizabeth,  5, 
83,  91-92,  99,  100,  106-7,  123,  124, 
126,  127,  129,  178,  183;  furnished 
through  Kirkham,  83,  99-100,  103- 
4,  126;  furnishing  of,  official,  100, 
101,  103-4 ;  superabundance  and 
elegance  of,  106-7,  124,  127,  178; 
expensiveness  of,  126,  129,  178. 

of  Children  of  King's  Rev- 
els, value  of,  17S2. 

of  public  theatre  companies, 


178 ;  Thomas  Platter  on  excel- 
lence of,  1782;  value  of,  178'; 
Robert  Green's  report  on  value  of, 
1782. 

Stage-directions,  as  corroborative 
but  unsubstantiative  evidence,  7a- 
8,  49\  113,  121,  131s,  137",  167, 
1672;  as  sources  on  public  theatre, 
72-8;  for  music,  10,  113,  116'-18, 
121;  for  singing,  113,  114',  121; 
in  Percy's  plays,  impossible  and 
valueless,  131*. 

Stage-history,  of  1597-1603,  x,  148- 
72 ;  new  perspective  of,  x,  54,  99, 
105,   126-29,    148-62. 

Stage-quarrel,  impersonal  side  of, 
as  incidental  to  relations  of  Black- 
friars to  theatres,  poets  and  play- 


ers, xi,  xii,  165-66*,  l>.- 
180';  at  Globe  and  Blackfriars! 
158,  168-72,  181 ;  Shakespeare  cen- 
sures Elizabeth's  partisanship  in, 
158*,  178-81 ;  Shakespeare  >  atti- 
tude toward,  in  Hamlet,  158*  iT.'i— 
82;  and  in  Truilus  and  Cressida, 
168,  172;  given  wrong  historical 
aspects,  169'. 

personal     side     of,     Jonson- 


Marston-Dekker  in,  x-xi,  xii,  133, 

140,   158,  165-66',  168,  16 

81. 

Star  Chamber,  Court  of,  Clifton's 
Complaint  in,  against  Blackfriars, 
36,  70,  71\  73-74,  77-83,  b4-87*, 
100,  101,  102,  113-14',  115,  126, 
128a,  159,  160,  ISO;  interpretation 
of  Gyles's  commission  by,  in  prac- 
tice, 70-71,  83,  127;  decree  of, 
against  Evan-,  M-s;;,  s4s7J,  87- 
91,  93-94,  103,  11.-,.  i-fi,  159;  de- 
cree of,  satirized  by  Chapman,  82, 
86-87.  See  Clifton,  Decree,  Eliz- 
abeth,  Evans,  Gyles. 

State  control  of  theatres,  Elizabeth 
to  Victoria,  148. 

Status  of  Blackfriars  Children,  105- 
25. 

Street,  Peter,  contractor  for  For- 
tune, 72-8,  29';  builder  of  Globe, 
29'. 

Strolling   players,   law   against,    150, 
L52*,     175*;     history    of.     IT 
Shakespeare's   company    as,    175'; 
other    companies    of,    with    dates, 
and  Blackfriars  as  a  cause,  175*. 

Structural  details  of  Blackfriars,  ix, 
37-.j4  ;  of  other  theatres,  see  Com- 
parative view. 

Summary  of  evidences  on  official 
conduct  of  Blackfriars.    126  89 

Swan  theatre,  De  Witt  —Van  Huchell 
sketch  of.  7  .  ::i ',  ::.:\  33*.  12 
45,  52,    134,    L37*:   date 
chitecture  of,  is3;  De  Witt's  view 

and  estimate  of,  30  33  :  mod 
Mope,  30,  31*;  size  and  ca| 
of,  30  31,  .  33  : 

structure     and     finishing     of 
stage  of,  33,   15,   L35,   138  .  gentle- 
men's rooms  in.   i  rches- 
tra"    of,    12*,    45,    137*;    sitting   on 
stage    of,    15,    138;    sitl 
stage  of,    L35;   location  of,   15.1'. 


206 


CHILDREN  OF  THE  CHAPEL  AT  BLACKFRIARS 


Taming  of  the  Shrew.  See  Shake- 
speare. 

Theatre,  the,  as  a  native  instinct  in- 
stitutionalized, 5'-6 ;  as  centre  of 
social  contact,  51,  95,  161;  Puri- 
tan opposition  to,  79,  149. 

Theatre,  Chapel  Royal  as,  4'. 

Theatre,  to  "erect"  or  "set  up"  a, 
meaning  of,   1284. 

"Theatre,  The,"  date  of,  9',  17' ;  not 
first  English  theatre,  171 ;  archi- 
tecture of,  183;  cost  of,  28-29; 
demolition  of,  28-29,  77",  155 ;  un- 
historical  stage  of,  491,  1376; 
whether  to  be  supplanted  by 
Blackfriars,  54,  1283,  152;  orders 
regulating,  1484;  opposition  to, 
149";  City's  request  to  suppress, 
152-53;  location  of,  1531. 

Theatre,  private,  sources  of,  5-6, 
12;  characteristics  of,  5-7,  18',  35, 
43-49,  50-plat-51,  141-42;  as  fac- 
tor in  the  drama,  51,  12 ;  admis- 
sion price  of,  6,  36,  112,  1122,  177; 
Blackfriars  as,  of  first  impor- 
tance, 6,  18,  163;  Master  of  Rev- 
els in  relation  to  origin  of,  6; 
galleries  in,  6,  7,  41-43,  46,  50- 
plat-51;  gentlemen's  or  lords' 
rooms  of,  6,  415,  418,  42,  425,  50- 
plat-51,  124,  1401,  141;  only  chil- 
dren-companies occupy,  7 ;  list  of, 
7,  1305,  136 ;  accommodations  for 
comfort  of  audiences  in,  8,  31-35, 
35\  50-51,  51\  52;  influences  of, 
on  theatre-structures,  8-9,  IS3,  35, 
36,  393,  43G,  141;  differentiated 
from  "public"  theatre,  9,  12,  156- 
57,  1611 ;  music  and  singing  as  fea- 
tures of,  9-101,  122 ;  becomes 
"public"  in  performances,  9; 
whether  "small,"  35,  38-39,  50- 
plat-51 ;  stage-structure  of,  42,  43, 
45,  46,  47,  141;  stages  of,  43~47, 
50-plat-51,  141 ;  sitting  on  the 
stage  of,  43,  44,  46,  47,  48\  50- 
plat-51,  52,  124,  130,  136,  1373, 
140,  141,  142;  capacity  of,  47,  49, 
50-plat~51,  52;  unhistorical  stage 
of,  491,  137";  location  of,  153\ 
See  Blackfriars,  Cockpit,  Paul's, 
Salisbury,  Whitefriars. 

public,  relations  of  audience 

of,  to  stage,  ix,  50-plat-51,  52; 
admission  price  at,  comparative 
view  of,  ix,  6,  1122;  plebeian  ori- 


gin of,  7 ;  characteristics  of,  7, 
18s,  425,  44-49,  50-plat~51,  52,  137- 
38;  galleries  in,  7,  421,  52;  stages 
of,  7,  33,  43,  44,  45,  46,  47,  49\ 
50-plat-51,  52,  1344,  135,  136-41; 
seats  in,  7,  136;  structural  fea- 
tures of,  7,  183;  sources  of  infor- 
mation on,  72-8 ;  provisions  for 
comfort  in,  8,  34-35,  351,  50-51, 
511,  52;  influences  of  Blackfriars 
on,  8,  9,  183,  35,  141 ;  becomes 
"private"  in  form,  8,  9,  183;  dif- 
ferentiated from  "private,"  9,  12, 
156-57,  1611,  1652,  176] ;  lack  of 
music  in,  9,  lO'-ll,  116",  122; 
compared  with  Blackfriars  in  pre- 
tentiousness, 28-35 ;  capacity  of, 
30-311,  33,  49,  50-plat-51,  511,  52; 
materials  of,  313,  321,  34,  347; 
stage-level  gallery  in,  424,  425,  52; 
gentlemen's  rooms  in,  425-43,  45, 
491,  50-plat-51,  1344,  136,  137°-38, 
141 ;  "orchestra"  of,  425-43,  45,  50- 
plat-51,  1376-38;  sitting  on  stage 
of,  44,  45,  1314,  136-41;  gentle- 
men's rooms  of,  in  relation  to 
stage-gallants,  44,  45,  1344,  136, 
137-41 ;  unhistorical  stages  of,  491, 
1376;  relative  positions  of  gentle- 
men to  yard-crowd  of,  50-plat- 
51,  52 ;  capacity  of,  compared  with 
modern,  501 ;  noble  patronage  of, 
as  model  for  German  patronage, 
111;  unfriendliness  of,  to  Eliza- 
beth, 129,  157,  148-62,  168;  sitting 
"over"  stage  of,  134-36 ;  Eliza- 
beth's plans  and  purposes  for,  129, 
148-62,  175 ;  state  control  of,  Eliz- 
abeth to  Victoria,  148 ;  City's  re- 
quests  to   suppress,   149,   152,   154, 

155,  156,  160;  official  orders 
against,  149,  153,  156,  157-58,  160, 
1611,  1621;  City  neglects  Queen's 
orders  against,  149,   153,  154,  155, 

156,  161\  1612-62;  City's  method 
of  reformation  of,  150-51,  153 ; 
Elizabeth's  method  of  reforma- 
tion of,  1505-512,  152-53,  154-55; 
alliance  of,  against  Blackfriars, 
151,  153-55,  156-57,  158-62,  168; 
Elizabeth's  law  on  noble  patron- 
age of,  152,  152",  175s;  location  of, 
1532 ;  results  of  Queen's  attitude 
toward,  155,  156-57,  158,  159,  163- 
72,  175-82 ;  Globe  and  Fortune 
companies  retained  but  restricted 


SUBJECT  INDEX 


207 


by  Elizabeth,  155,  156;  Black- 
friars  attacked  by  City  as,  1611; 
losses  of  patronage  by,  to  Black- 
friars,  1G4-66,  176,  181-82;  ob- 
scenity of  plays  at,  165-66.  See 
Audiences,  City,  Elizabeth,  Or- 
ders, Stage,  Stage-quarrel,  and 
individual   theatres. 

in    France,    sitting    on    stage 


of,  and  stage-structure,  imported, 
ix,  46,  143-47;  galleries  in,  46-47, 
52. 

in    Germany.      See    German. 


modern,  stage-level  galleries 

of  European  and  American,  424; 
of  Freiburg,  424 ;  size  of  stage  in, 
472;  view  of  actors  in,  47s;  ca- 
pacities of  American,  compared 
with  Elizabethan-Jacobean,  501 ; 
seats  in,  51:;  art  of  acting  in, 
compared,  134s. 

Theatre  and  City  vs.  Crown,  in  re- 
lation to  Blackfriars,  x,  129,  149- 
62,  168.  See  Blackfriars,  City, 
Elizabeth,  James,  Shakespeare, 
Theatre,  public. 

Theatres,  companies,  poets,  and 
players,  in  relation  to  Blackfriars, 
x-xi,  xii,  133,  140,  158,  165-662, 
167,  168,   169-72,  178-81. 

Theatrical  modes  and  customs,  ori- 
gin of  certain,  129.  See  Imita- 
tion, Masque,  Music,  Singing,  Sit- 
ting on,   Sitting  "over." 

Theatrical  monopoly,  of  D'Avenant 
and  Killigrew,  music  regarded  as 
an  essential  by,  11;  throttles  art 
of  acting  in  England  and  Ger- 
many, HO3;  granted  by  Charles  II, 
148. 

Theatrical  reformation.  See  Refor- 
mation. 

Theatrical  relations.    See  Relations. 

Tilney,     Edmund,     Master    of    the 


Revels,  Whitefriars  as  office  for, 
22* ;  accounts  of,  101;  salary  of, 
103". 

Training  of  Children  of  Chapel  at 
Blackfriars    by    Queen's    require- 
ment, xi,  4-.".,  9-11,  40, 
71,  74,  80',  105-25,  127,  163,    180. 

Traveling  of  companies  into  the 
country.     See  Strolling. 

Triiunph  of  Peace,  The.    See  Shir- 

,.ley- 

Troilus   and   Crcssida.     Sec   Shake- 
speare. 
Twelfth  Night.     See  Shakespeare. 

Van  Buchell.     Sec  Swan. 

Wardrobe.     Sec   Stage-apparel. 

Webster,  John,  new-found  play  by, 
xv,   1642. 

What  You  Will.    See  Marston. 

Whitefriars,  Children  of  KiiiLc'i 
Revels  at,  1,  14,  15,  117',  121,  17-  ; 
Children  of  Revels  to  Queen  at, 
1.  13,  16,  110*,  L17\  121;  early 
children-companies  at,  6 ;  as 
"Great  Hall"  of  monastery,  7 ;  as 
private  theatre,  7,  9\  130';  size 
and  structural  features  of,  7,  36 ; 
capacity  of,  7;  no  galleries  in,  7; 
date  of,  8,  91;  dramatists  for,  13- 
14;   on   dramas  of,    15;    stage  of, 

43,  44,    130;    sitting   on   stage   of, 

44,  130;   location  of,    153". 
Whitelocke,     Bulstrode.       See     Or- 
chestra. 

Widdou'cs  Tcares,  The.  See  Chap- 
man. 

Yeoman  of  the  Revels,  provides  ap- 
parel for  Children  at  Blackfriars, 
83,  99-100,  103-4,  126;  Kirkham 
as,  874,  89T,  98-100,  L01, 
duties  of.  993-100' ;  expenditures 
by,  official,   100,   101,   103-4. 


THE  LIBRARY 
UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA 

Santa  Barbara 
Goleta,  California 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THE  LAST  DATE 
STAMPED  BELOW. 


AVAILABLE  FOB 

CIRCULAR 
DIS 


WAY  22 1967   i 


r 


APR  23  2QQl 


Ffctoi-3  1973^ 

0m-3,*9(A!5o2fe"4')"4T6 


3   1205  00452  8715 


UC  SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 


AA       001077  301 


